Having a bit of trouble

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
It's insulting because it isn't true.
Click to expand...

We don't have reliable data on this, and we probably won't ever. Your confidence on this issue is irresponsible. Admit that we just don't know either way. If you're claiming I'm being too confident on saying this is true, you're being way too confident that it's not.
Members don't see this ad.
 
psych844 said:
This forum is not all Psychologists, nor is it representative of all Psychologists. You're one person.
Click to expand...
Indeed, I am in fact one person. However, it is more than me that has responded and said this doesn't apply. There is also research to support my view. The people who did that research…psychologists. Where those articles were published…in academic (psychology) journals. The editors and reviewers of those journals…psychologists.
 
Justanothergrad said:
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").
Click to expand...

Social Psychology also has the lowest # of reproducible studies so....I think that tells you a lot about their methods.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Therapist4Chnge said:
Indeed, I am in fact one person. However, it is more than me that has responded and said this doesn't apply. There is also research to support my view. The people who did that research…psychologists. Where those articles were published…in academic (psychology) journals. The editors and reviewers of those journals…psychologists.
Click to expand...

I quote justanothergrad

"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."
 
Maybe I can help...

@psych844, you're adding some psychological phenomena into your gross exaggeration and perpetuation of a stereotype that harm our field (i.e., psychiatrists/psychologists are "quacks, shrinks, [insert derogatory comment], etc.").

We are not those things ("quacks, shrinks, etc."), and it is not surprising that SDN users are not allowing these statements to go unchallenged.

First, there is something called observer-expectancy bias, and when you place this form of reactivity (or an evaluation that fills your own bias), you see what you want (whether or not it is correct)...and in this case, sorry, but it is an incorrect, damning conclusion. People are much more than their mental illness or dysfunction.

Second, you are adding the psychological defense of sublimation to your evaluation, which is a psychodynamic concept in which a mature defense structure channels an individual - usually an adult - into constructive (but sometimes destructive) action; for example, someone with athletic precision & forceful anger becomes a professional baseball hitter b/c he can beat the hell out that baseball and get his team some home runs; or a brave, daredevil learns to fight fires for a living. This work 'fills them up' and is self-satisfying. We all do things for all kinds of reasons, and it is interesting to see how one was led to the path he/she takes.

I did cancer research for 5 years prior to doctoral training, and I was not surprised that I fell into that line of work (because my best friend did of Leukemia when I was 12 years old). But did my friend's death motivate me beyond belief to get my job? No, it did not.

One can have family members that suffer from mental dysfunction, does that motivate one 'beyond belief' to go through doctoral training? Uhhh? I dunno.

When I asked my Dad what made him want to be a surgeon, he said he broke his arm as a little boy. What???? You mean to tell me that significant memory and associated experience lead him through medical school, across the globe to residencies, and finally to build a private practice in a different country. I think not.

So being truthful with one's own mental dysfunction is very personal. And if it were legitimate peer-reviewed studies, with professionals participating in the study, he/she would (one would expect) be truthful about this. Otherwise, do not sign consent and be involved in this research.

But, where I have a problem, is that you're asking us to admit to a fallacy ('That those in our field are sublimating to solve our own problems through the evaluation and treatment of others.' I'm paraphrasing.) And when you (or maybe not you per se, but those who perpetuate the fallacy) look around you see the predisposed observation (expectancy bias), you want to fill it, and make it so (e.g., "Dr. Nose does endoscopic surgery because he broke his nose multiple times as kid," or "Bob the Builder used to build tree-houses in his backyard, so no wonder he owns a construction company as an adult." *joking on the last one to make a point,* etc.)

It's not gonna happen. Not here, and not in person.

EDIT: I have just introduced two concepts (one social psychological, the other psychodynamic) and both are DIFFICULT to operationalize in a study, but they are phenomena of human behavior, nonetheless that may assist in this thread.

And I have no idea what the OP was having a bit of trouble about.



:pacifier: Happy Mother's Day to your Mothers, and any SDN Moms! :pacifier1:
 
Last edited:
psych844 said:
Social Psychology also has the lowest # of reproducible studies so....I think that tells you a lot about their methods.
Click to expand...
No.

psych844 said:
We don't have reliable data on this, and we probably won't ever. Your confidence on this issue is irresponsible. Admit that we just don't know either way. If you're claiming I'm being too confident on saying this is true, you're being way too confident that it's not.
Click to expand...
We have it on countless other professions and the fact is... mental health occurs in the same rates across similar professions and profession specialties. There is zero reason to believe otherwise. This is a fact. Note, we may also have it on psychology as well, but I'm just not familiar with the literature.

psych844 said:
I quote justanothergrad

"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."
Click to expand...
Difficulty in measurement does not indicate in inability to measure it. In fact, it has been measured in numerous other professions and I'm yet to see any reason to believe that those professions differ significantly from ours in any way; that's simply not what the data on burnout and prevalence suggests. Don't use my quote to make it sound like support for your argument. It is not.
 
Instead of doing all this backpedaling and clarifying, nobody would have batted an eye if you said some people enter the field of psychology with/because of psychological issues, but that's not how you initially construed it. You originally said you believed it may be true that half of psychologists enter the field due to their own psychological issues. Then you said that people are taking the statement too seriously. Then you said you're not actually making the case for the statement and that you were joking. Then you clarified the original statement by suggesting different criteria for what "crazy" actually is (e.g., being indirectly influenced by family members with mental health issues). Then you said you're "essentially saying that [you] think it's true but [you're] not stating it with the most confidence/seriousness."

Being combative with everybody has only served to muddle the original issue. @psych884 do you believe that 50% of psychologists enter the field with significant psychological issues? If not, may I just point out that it's what you originally said and what everybody believes you're still arguing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
that's not how you initially construed it.
Click to expand...

The saying isn't that 10% of Psychologists are crazy, it's half...half is 50%.
 
may I just point out that it's
Click to expand...

I'll point something out to you. Read. Read. Read. I made a post about that near the end of page 1.
 
Let me translate then: for one year's worth of clinical psychology students (~4,000 students), approximately 2,000 of them entered psychology because of their own personal significant psychological issues? That still seems to be what you're insinuating (I understand you said you're only "50% confident" in that belief).

CheetahGirl said:
What is the source of the data, and context?

And if it is a colloquial saying,' so is: 'Moms know best,' but do you think that is true?
Click to expand...

Sure, we've heard the saying that psychologists are a little crazy themselves, but I think psych844 warped the saying a bit to match their own personal narrative (ie, being a little crazy is different than saying 50% were motivated to enter the field because they are crazy).
 
Yes, and my point is: So what? (if 10%, 50% 100% humanity is crazy??) What is the question, and context...b/c sweeping generalizations are harmful.

No one is absolved from mental defect and dysfunction in the real world.

Are you interested in post hoc research, psych844?
 
CheetahGirl said:
Yes, and my point is: So what? (if 10%, 50% 100% humanity is crazy??) What is the question, and context...b/c sweeping generalizations are harmful.

Are you interested in post hoc research, psych844?
Click to expand...

That's the thing..I made an innocent remark, innocent because I had little confidence/seriousness in the statement, and because it seemed relevant in this thread.

My only point in the original statement was to suggest that people tend to be interested in things that they can relate to. Ie A lot of Psychologists might be able to relate to mental illness because they struggle/struggled with it themselves. Yes, this might get them into the profession, but I do not mean to suggest that it makes them ****ty at their job. Look, I've read medical forums for a long time...there seems to be a clear divide between people that go into medicine to help people and people that openly look at it as a investment (and money is #1). Nothing wrong with that. It has nothing to do with your competence.

Post-hoc research?
This is research done when there is an interaction between factors..and you are looking for patterns between the levels of the different factors?
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Ok. Thanks for the clarification. To me, you are talking about sublimation, generally, as well. Post-hoc research = (in my current defn) is research on material, after the fact.

Perhaps, I should've said 'retrospective research' but I had 'post hoc meetings' on the mind.
 
Last edited:
CheetahGirl said:
Ok. Thanks for the clarification. To me, you are taking about sublimation, generally, as well. Post-hoc research = (in my current defn) is research on material, after the fact.

Perhaps, I should've said 'retrospective research' but I had 'post hoc meetings' on the mind.
Click to expand...

I do find it interesting, yes. Why do you ask?
 
I'm assuming you're going to tell me i'm sort of falling for the bias/same sort of issues that hamper retrospective research? (ie bias/confounding) I'm looking back at my own story and applying it across the board? or that i'm using my own reasons for being interested in psychology and applying it to other people?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Innocent remark? Does that mean that is was ignorant or that it was harmless? My main reason to be so strong about this ignorant and harmful comment is that stigmatizing psychologists and psychiatrists does not make it easier for my patients to seek help. I challenge this and other related misconceptions every day and will continue to do so because I am on the front lines of mental illness every day . People come to me and send their children to see me because their lives are at stake. You have no friggin' idea what you are talking about. It is not a joke.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Harmless in the sense that it was an offhand comment, made by an anonymous poster/on an online forum, where my seriousness/commitment to it was about 50%.

And I also find it incredibly naive, bordering on dumb, if anybody truly believes that some student could be swayed by a random persons offhand comment in one thread on an online forum. I see this as fake outrage. If someone is that dumb, to take one random person's comment that seriously, then they are not fit for any job..let alone Psychology.

I value your guys knowledge (even though it may not seem that way always), but I'm not going to trust you 100% on every point..and I'm going to check with other people to see if they say the same thing.
 
Last edited:
CheetahGirl said:
And I have no idea what the OP was having a bit of trouble about.
Click to expand...
It was a doctoral student who was struggling with interpersonal dynamics or conflict in their cohort. I was trying to provide some helpful feedback based on my own experiences, but it was derailed by this stupid post:
psych844 said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
smalltownpsych said:
It was a doctoral student who was struggling with interpersonal dynamics or conflict in their cohort. I was trying to provide some helpful feedback based on my own experiences, but it was derailed by this stupid post:
Click to expand...

The first three posts, in reply to the OP, accused the OP of possibly having a role to play in the troubles, and stressed self-awareness and controlling their behavior...when there was absolutely no reason to think this person was at all at fault. If there was something unhelpful, and something that could have driven the person away, it was that. This forum has a history of jumping on people way too quickly.
 
psych844 said:
And I also find it incredibly naive, bordering on dumb, if anybody truly believes that some student could be swayed by a random persons offhand comment in one thread on an online forum. I see this as fake outrage. If someone is that dumb, to take one random person's comment that seriously, then they are not fit for any job..let alone Psychology.
Click to expand...

If someone is looking for confirmation of a currently held belief…then yes, I do think someone can be swayed by a random person's offhand comment. It definitely isn't fake outrage because it has happened on here before. There is a plethora of misinformation floating out there and those of us practicing in the field often find it frustrating that certain misinformation continues to be propagated, despite efforts to help clarify aspects of the field and provide a more accurate picture of the field and daily practice. Many prospective students come in with only bits of information, so they may not be able to filter through the flotsam to actually find the valuable pieces of information. The world can look very differently when you don't know what you don't know, so sometimes it's helpful to have people point you in the right direction and/or weed through the nonsense to get to more accurate information.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
psych844 said:
The first three posts, in reply to the OP, accused the OP of possibly having a role to play in the troubles, and stressed self-awareness and controlling their behavior...when there was absolutely no reason to think this person was at all at fault. If there was something unhelpful, and something that could have driven the person away, it was that. This forum has a history of jumping on people way too quickly.
Click to expand...
My post was aimed at how to deal with other peoples potentially unhealthy responses to stress. The example that I used from personal experience was that I had to learn how to avoid certain people that responded to stress by an increase in conflict. The other two posts were aimed at looking to see if anything the OP was doing was contributing to the situation. We ask those questions of ourselves and others to have better interpersonal functioning. We aren't usually trying to figure out who is at fault.

edited to get rid of double negative :oops:
 
Last edited:
It's important to remember NONE of us are born psychologists, medical doctors, lawyers, engineers, electricians, etc. We pop out as one of the above after moving thru our 'career funnel' of choice, so to speak. Sure, we all have innate qualities that inform our developed skills, but like I said above, none of us are absolved from mental defect and interpersonal dysfunction.

smalltownpsych said:
My post was aimed at how to deal with other peoples potentially unhealthy responses to stress. The example that I used from personal experience was that I had to learn how to avoid certain people that responded to stress by an increase in conflict. The other two posts were aimed at looking to see if anything the OP was doing was contributing to the situation. We ask those questions of ourselves and others to have better interpersonal functioning. We aren't usually not trying to figure out who is at fault.
Click to expand...

Yes, and for those of us who enjoy relational theories...it is a two-person psychology, and it takes two to tango. Asking for self-awareness is not being critical...it is sometimes exactly what the doctor orders.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Justanothergrad said:
As I said before, No.
Click to expand...
http://www.apa.org/monitor/2015/10/share-reproducibility.aspx

APA says otherwise. But of course you are the authority on this, not APA. The best that APA can do is "well other sciences have the same issues". ..but they don't compare the numbers at all.

Despite the care taken to reproduce the experiments exactly, more than half of the studies failed to replicate. When the effects were replicated, they tended to be smaller or weaker than those of the original study.
Click to expand...
 
Howard Kurtzman, PhD, APA's acting executive director for science, praised the study. "It's an excellent example of how scientists can study science itself," he says. "The outcomes point to the need for reforms in research, review and publication practices." This fall, he adds, APA's governance groups will be discussing steps the association can take to enhance reproducibility.
Click to expand...
 
psych844 said:
http://www.apa.org/monitor/2015/10/share-reproducibility.aspx

APA says otherwise. But of course you are the authority on this, not APA. The best that APA can do is "well other sciences have the same issues". ..but they don't compare the numbers at all.
Click to expand...
Stop being snippy. You do it every time someone disagrees with you, no matter how off base your comment was.

1. You attacked a single branch of psychology (social psychology) as a stand out problem with replication and didn't discuss any of the issues at hand (conceptual replications are more common that actual replications, replication is a problem in all fields, etc.) You have yet to offer any evidence that social psychology suffers from greater problems. There is no support for that statement. It is not only inaccurate, but it is a gross misrepresentation of the field. Please stop saying inaccurate things like this. It doesn't help anyone.

2. If you read the actual article they discuss how it is difficult to determine "effectiveness of replication" and that replication is tied to the strength of effect in the original study (kind of a statistical duh really) more than research team effects. They evaluated several criteria in the study and the number quoted there was on the low end as I recall.

3. The broader issue is that replication is not valued, as the authors described themselves in that article (that was the actual point of the article). That said, we don't conclude major findings based on a single study.. because thats a bad idea. However, when it comes to replication, there are plenty of other studies showing just how easily they are replicated even within novel contexts (e.g., the ton of literature evaluating Mturk to replicate a host of psychological phenomenon).

FYI, monitor commentary is NOT an endorsed statement from APA so no the "APA didn't say so".
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
In another angle, some of the emerging research on psychologists and psychology trainees with disabilities, including those with psychiatric disabilities/mental illnesses, suggests that these trainees and professionals do face considerable barriers and stigma in the field for a number of reasons, including faculty and supervisors seeing them as clients instead of students and colleagues and good old fashioned stigma. So, there's that piece as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
psych844 said:
The first three posts, in reply to the OP, accused the OP of possibly having a role to play in the troubles, and stressed self-awareness and controlling their behavior...when there was absolutely no reason to think this person was at all at fault. If there was something unhelpful, and something that could have driven the person away, it was that. This forum has a history of jumping on people way too quickly.
Click to expand...
If you don't count your own post, I think I'm one of the first three posts. I'd encourage you to reread my suggestions to the OP. I expressly say that I'm not making a determination regarding "fault." Listen, you can do everything right but encounter negative responses from others. I suggested that changing your own behaviors is often easier and more effective than trying to change others'. I make that statement with no judgement of blame, fault, etc. I've been through those situations as a student, faculty, boss, and employee, on either side of the problem and know that there are likely multiple views of the same situation. In the absence of the different perspectives, the best suggestion I can make to the person is to look to see what they can change about their own behavior, while concurrently seeking assistance from someone locally who a) has access to more data on the specific situation; and b) has most likely dealt with similar situations locally and is aware of the resources available to the OP. I think if you re-read my post, you'll see that that is exactly what I did.

As to your post way back there, I didn't respond because I was offended or think it's dangerous, but more because I think you were incorrect. My advice to you (and I think you already did a lot of this) would be to say "I posted that more as an off the cuff statement than as a research supported statement, unaware that others might be so offended. That was certainly not my intent. Thanks for pointing out how it's incorrect and might bother some." My advice to others who seem to want to further kill the already dead horse would be to stop doing so- s/he said something that is often said, including by people in our field. S/he obviously didn't mean to offend. You've pointed out the inaccuracies in the statement. Ad hominem and other such retorts- especially to someone who has identified as a student is usually not beneficial, and may be counterproductive.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
You must log in or register to reply here.
Next unread thread

Similar threads

MynesForeva
Need a bit of help
Replies
13
Views
950
deleted1100659
D
J
A bit of a niche question about training/CDA grants?
Replies
10
Views
884
jdawg2017
J
JeyRo
Endless TV shows about heroic, idealized portrayals of physicians. Why none about psychologists? Grinds my gears a bit.....
2
Replies
92
Views
4K
R. Matey
R. Matey
G
I need advice on what to study for the EPPP. I've had trouble passing it. Many of the questions are not in study guides.
Replies
12
Views
3K
texanpsychdoc
T
P
Trouble with GRE
Replies
8
Views
1K
singasongofjoy
singasongofjoy
Top