Institute for Transpersonal Psychology- any thoughts?

[PhDPsy]

I am wondering what people think about their global PhD program. Please post any comments.

The reason I am interested in knowing is that I am considering applying. I applied to traditional programs in the past and did not get in. I do have an authentic interest in alternative approaches to psychotherapy and healing. All this came after a recent personal life altering event, and many years in academic/scientific psychology, which is definitely an excellent foundation.

I also feel with a M.A. & B.S. from very respectable public universities, I have reached a dead end, if I want to continue in psychology without reaching my potential. With the objective of integrating my personal and professional backgrounds with my interest in Eastern, meditative traditions, I think this programs sounds right for me.

The program does not look at the GRE (which is good for me, as I am dyslexic.) I have inconsistent test score patterns (3.4 GPA from my masters.) I don't think it's APA accredited either.

Thanks for letting me know your thoughts!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[PorkDumplings]

You're right, ITP is not APA accredited, and non-traditional schools like that generally don't have any funding packages for their PhD students in the form of GAs or what have you. Also, if you decide that you want to teach your options are of course going to be very limited.

Other than that, I think transpersonal psychology is pretty neat. I don't know if you're dead set on ITP, but CIIS is another pretty cool-sounding one you might want to give a look at (www.ciis.edu). Again, another very expensive school.

 

[edieb]

Evaluation of a program boils down to one main thing: The internship match rate If the program has a low internship match rate, then stay away.

As an aside, if your goal is to help people suffering with mental illness, wouldn't it be better to go to a program that teaches methods of treatment that have efficacy research behind them? I am not sure about the school you are naming, but I have always thought it was very unethical when persons practice a type of therapy because of enjoyment but that has no research supporting its effectiveness.

 

[PhDPsy]

You both make very important points. While I am considering this, I am also trying to gain more research experience. I appreciate your input, as this whole process can be overwhelming without bouncing ideas of one another. Thanks!

 

[Metta]

Have to agree with what others have said here -- if your career goals include clinical practice, you'll need to be licensed. If you go to a non-APA-accredited program, or even an APA-accredited program with poor internship match rates, you're just buying trouble for yourself in trying to meet licensure requirements. (And paying a lot of money for it, to boot.)

There are many options for post-degree education in transpersonal psychology. CIIS, for instance, offers a Certificate in East-West Psychology, and I've seen a number of similar programs advertised.

Also, reputable PsyD programs aren't necessarily a wasteland for folks interested in transpersonal psychology. Several more conventional topics border somewhat on transpersonal psychology (e.g., mindfulness-based interventions, acceptance therapies, Jung's work), and if you found a sympathetic advisor, you could perhaps extend your research or training even further in that direction.

 

[ashejane]

I know this thread is over a year old, but I thought it interesting to note that ITP has begun the process for gaining APA accreditation.

 

[deleted176373]

I know this thread is over a year old, but I thought it interesting to note that ITP has begun the process for gaining APA accreditation.

Wake us when they get it.

Mark

 

[DrGero]

The best I've heard it put is that ITP is a very good quality, nonaccredited institution. I worked with an ITP grad a long time ago when I was a practicum student, she was very conscientious and pleasant. I think the biggest issue is that you close a lot of doors on yourself attending a nonaccredited school, much less a lower-quality school.

 

[philips5000]

Effective July 1, 2012, the Institute of Transpersonal Psychology (ITP) will become.....
Sofia University

FYI - http://www.itp.edu/currents/editorials/an-historic-moment.php

 

[deleted176373]

Still not APA accredited.

 

[Therapist1997]

I'm an ITP grad (residential Ph.D. program), and highly recommend the school. I did not complete my dissertation (Altruism and Social Activism as a Spiritual Path) because, after 3 years with no income while in my program, I was delighted to be hired by a school district as a crisis counselor working w/ at-risk youth. I made $$ and was supervised by an MFT for the full-time hours I worked; I then sat for my MFT written and orals, passing both on the first try (that was back in the day when orals were required). When I graduated in l997, ITP had the highest first-try pass rate on the MFT exams of ALL California grad schools (including Stanford, UC Berkeley, etc.) It was WASC accredited when I attended (& is now in the process of getting APA accreditation). Many in my Ph.D. cohort are now psychologists and had no problem sitting for their boards and getting licensed, despite the lack of APA accreditation (which I feel confident the school will get).
There have been changes at the school beyond the name change in terms of the programs that the school is offering (I understand they are going to offer an undergraduate degree program, and some different certificate programs), so I can't speak for those changes, but it was an excellent experience for me and provided a substantive underpinning for the clinical work that I do (which, btw, is primarily cognitive-behavioral!)

 

[erg923]

I'm an ITP grad (residential Ph.D. program), and highly recommend the school. I did not complete my dissertation (Altruism and Social Activism as a Spiritual Path) because, after 3 years with no income while in my program, I was delighted to be hired by a school district as a crisis counselor working w/ at-risk youth. I made $$ and was supervised by an MFT for the full-time hours I worked; I then sat for my MFT written and orals, passing both on the first try (that was back in the day when orals were required). When I graduated in l997, ITP had the highest first-try pass rate on the MFT exams of ALL California grad schools (including Stanford, UC Berkeley, etc.) It was WASC accredited when I attended (& is now in the process of getting APA accreditation). Many in my Ph.D. cohort are now psychologists and had no problem sitting for their boards and getting licensed, despite the lack of APA accreditation (which I feel confident the school will get).
There have been changes at the school beyond the name change in terms of the programs that the school is offering (I understand they are going to offer an undergraduate degree program, and some different certificate programs), so I can't speak for those changes, but it was an excellent experience for me and provided a substantive underpinning for the clinical work that I do (which, btw, is primarily cognitive-behavioral!)

So you are recommending this school's Ph.D program in psychology because it allowed you to become an MFT?
I dont follow...

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Many in my Ph.D. cohort are now psychologists and had no problem sitting for their boards and getting licensed, despite the lack of APA accreditation (which I feel confident the school will get).

1. Licensed as clinical psychologists? Or MFT/LMHC/etc?
2. Boards...meaning the EPPP? Or a diplomate like ABPP?

OP...or whomever, be very wary of any program that is not APA-acred. You can still learn about Transpersonal Psychology AND attend an excellent program...though they may not be from the same place. The field has a strong preference for research-supported interventions, and I don't believe TP falls into that category, so it may be more difficult to secure practica, an internship, a post-doc, and/or a job if you are not trained in the research-supported modalities.

 

[Therapist1997]

Yes, many of my ITP cohort are licensed clinical psychologists, having completed their dissertations at ITP and taken their clinical psychology licensing exams. Two friends in my cohort, now psychologists, went to underserved areas (Alaska) and got their student loans "forgiven" for working in underserved populations, and now practice in Ashland, OR. One is a psychologist in England. Several others are licensed clinical psychologists working in CA. I, on the other hand, took a job in Santa Cruz, CA (where I have white water views out my therapy office window) and sat for my MFT licensure without completing my dissertation. No regrets!

 

[erg923]

Yes, many of my ITP cohort are licensed clinical psychologists, having completed their dissertations at ITP and taken their clinical psychology licensing exams. Two friends in my cohort, now psychologists, went to underserved areas (Alaska) and got their student loans "forgiven" for working in underserved populations, and now practice in Ashland, OR. One is a psychologist in England. Several others are licensed clinical psychologists working in CA. I, on the other hand, took a job in Santa Cruz, CA (where I have white water views out my therapy office window) and sat for my MFT licensure without completing my dissertation. No regrets!

So, your ph.d program helped you become an MFT.

This may be good for you, but I would asume most people who want to attend a ph.d in psychology would like to know if it prepared them well the be a doctoral level psychologist.

 

[neutralpalatte]

This was my graduate school and it was a good school. They did change their name after I attended, to Sofia university. They are trying to take the university in a slightly different direction with not only transpersonal psychology, but adding (for lack of a better term) the divine feminine power as well. I think that is their intention, and they didn't want the name to limit them. Personally, I think they should have left it as it was, but I believe they do have a long-term plan with more changes coming.

That being said, they do offer an in-person MFT program, as well as a distance learning MFT program, but the latter is 4 years long so most just opt for a PhD program that is the same length of time and will still allow them to sit for the LMFT exam.

 

[erg923]

the divine feminine power as well.

What. The. ****. Is that?!

And I again must repeat. Your Ph.D program enabled you to become an MFT? Uh...Congratulations? Smells fishy...

 

[A Blue Duck]

What. The. ****. Is that?!

Haha my thoughts exactly.

This program sounds like it is a lock for PCSAS accreditation.

 

[smalltownpsych]

No wonder most people don't think of psychology as a science. It is because of new agey garbage like this. It's embarassing and demeaning to the field. There are ways of studying alternative methods and philosophies and they can be great for generating research questions, but without research we might as well be selling snake oil and soothsaying.

 

[neutralpalatte]

If you don't like the coursework, guess what? You don't have to attend the program! But there are other people out there that DO like and prefer that type of coursework. ITP/Sofia is REGIONALLY accredited and allows people to sit for mental health licenses. Its professional. There are many paths in psych, and if you don't like one, yayyyy you don't have to follow that one!!

It kind of disturbs me when I see mental health "professionals" talk a lot of **** on things they "don't like" instead of being open-minded and non-judgmental like a mental health "professional" should be . If you're this close-minded with people in your industry, I would hate to see how close-minded and judgmental you are toward your clients!

 

[WisNeuro]

I'm willing to accept any treatment with sufficient empirical backing done by independent researchers. If they can show it, sure, let's get insurance companies to reimburse. If not, it's just snake oil sold to gullible people by dishonest practitioners.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Not all treatments or programs are created equal. If one person supports an EBT, while another person wants to use moonbeams and rainbows to treat XYZ disorder…are those really equal paths? There are so many hacks and snake oil salespeople out there these days (particularly in CA), so it isn't surprising that some people take exception to programs that push soft/unsupported approaches. If I had my druthers I'd have far higher requirements for *any* profession that involves direct patient contact, but the horse is out of the barn already on most of those areas.

As for being open-minded and non-judgmental…I admit that I am *very* judgmental of unsupported treatments and junk science; that doesn't make me a bad person, it makes me a good scientist and clinician.

 

[PsychResearch123]

If you don't like the coursework, guess what? You don't have to attend the program! But there are other people out there that DO like and prefer that type of coursework. ITP/Sofia is REGIONALLY accredited and allows people to sit for mental health licenses. Its professional. There are many paths in psych, and if you don't like one, yayyyy you don't have to follow that one!!

It kind of disturbs me when I see mental health "professionals" talk a lot of **** on things they "don't like" instead of being open-minded and non-judgmental like a mental health "professional" should be . If you're this close-minded with people in your industry, I would hate to see how close-minded and judgmental you are toward your clients!

Not liking =/= accepting that there is no evidence supporting a treatment.

 

[neutralpalatte]

Not liking =/= accepting that there is no evidence supporting a treatment.

Just because you attend a school doesn't mean that is 100% exactly how you will treat. Like I've said a million times, what is more relevant is where your 3,000 supervised hours come from. And that has nothing to do with your schooling. And I would also not take advice regarding people who have attended these kinds of schools, from people who have never attended them lol.

 

[A Blue Duck]

And I would also not take advice regarding people who have attended these kinds of schools, from people who have never attended them lol.

Your logic here is actually putting the fear of divine feminine power inside me. Objective opinions on program merit? No no no...only those who attended the program and completely biased and self-protecting are allowed to speak about such things.

 

[neutralpalatte]

Your logic here is actually putting the fear of divine feminine power inside me. Objective opinions on program merit? No no no...only those who attended the program and completely biased and self-protecting are allowed to speak about such things.

Its regionally accredited and approved by every state's licensing committee. If that's a problem for you, take it up with WASC, the school itself, and every state's licensing committee. Its no one else's problem except yours. Case closed.

 

[WisNeuro]

You forgot to add it's a problem of the patients that it will either do nothing for, or possibly harm in some way (at least financially).

 

[A Blue Duck]

Its no one else's problem except yours. Case closed.

Actually, it's a problem for mental health patients, clinical psychologists, and the fields of clinical/psychological science.

I am just one of many persons affected by your program and others like it.

 

[neutralpalatte]

Actually, it's a problem for mental health patients, clinical psychologists, and the fields of clinical/psychological science.

I am just one of many persons affected by your program and others like it.

Great, better go take it up with the people I listed above, because that's the only people who will be able to decide if they want to make changes!

 

[erg923]

So, in your mind, the key to a profession's success and penetration/viability in the healthcare market, is to train under the model of: "it's all good bro, you do whatever you wanna do and I'll do whatever I wanna do?!"

Who is that cool California style nonjudgment serving? You? Or mental health patients?

This seems to be a recurring theme in my questions to you. I think many of us are trying to figure out if you're really just this naïve about professional training issues, or if you simply do not care about the larger profession and simply care about YOU.

 

[erg923]

Neutralpallet, are you familiar with Lillienfelds (Emory) article "psychological treatments that harm?" Standard reading for my students in our journal club by the way.

Would you be interested in reading this article if I provided a copy to you?

 

[smalltownpsych]

Neutralpallet, are you familiar with Lillienfelds (Emory) article "psychological treatments that harm?" Standard reading for my students in our journal club by the way.

Would you be interested in reading this article if I provided a copy to you?

I would love a copy of this erg. A quick search of my databases didn't locate it. IMO it is essential to know the good and the bad of psychological science and treatments. The repressed memory stuff is one example of harm that has happened when we don't rely on science. There are many others in our field unfortunately.

 

[erg923]

I would love a copy of this erg. A quick search of my databases didn't locate it. IMO it is essential to know the good and the bad of psychological science and treatments. The repressed memory stuff is one example of harm that has happened when we don't rely on science. There are many others in our field unfortunately.

sent

 

[CaliMac]

Neutralpallet, are you familiar with Lillienfelds (Emory) article "psychological treatments that harm?" Standard reading for my students in our journal club by the way.

Would you be interested in reading this article if I provided a copy to you?

Me too, please!

 

[Nahsil]

Re "divine feminine power," if we're talking about archetypal psychology, I recommend viewing some Jordan Peterson material for an introduction to archetypal psychology from the perspective of a highly respectable and intellectually critical professor (former Harvard, now U of Toronto). He approaches the subject with a Darwinian and Piagetian framework. He's very interested in empirical research as well, but in the Big 5 personality domain rather than archetypal.



I also recommend reading some James Hillman for a more modern, neo-Jungian perspective. He's absolutely brilliant and makes a great case against Cartesian duality and overly "literalist" approaches.

if anyone's interested in transpersonal, I recommend my program, West Georgia. It's a humanistic/existential-phenomenological/transpersonal program in a public state school. The PhD program is not APA accredited however, it's a purely critical/academic degree. I'm only doing my Masters here, then going for a PhD in clinical (or maybe counseling) somewhere else.

"New Age people can think creatively, but they can't think critically." - Jordan Peterson

 

[smalltownpsych]

I personally love the concept of archetypes and have really enjoyed reading Joseph Campbell's work on the apparently universal human themes that arise in mythology. It is fascinating and thought provoking material. It feeds parts of my psyche that enjoy metaphysical explorations. However, when I am working with real people who have chronic suicidality and NSSI, I find the empirically validated treatments from DBT to be highly effective and the indicated treatment, not metaphysical explorations. Many of my patients do enjoy reading about and delving into metaphysics and religion and you name it, to me that is a separate issue from treatment. I abhor the notion of psychologist as guru. Despite some criticisms of Linehan's work, she has been able to demonstrate an effective treatment for a previously thought of as untreatable condition. I use those techniques and they work and I have had the good fortune to be able to help people to stop wanting to die and slashing themselves up to cope with their pain. A caring and thoughtful human being, guided by science is what saves lives in this business. And it is about saving lives, it doesn't take too long in practice before you lose a patient, most of us have it happen while still in school. If you want to know about real existential crises, then try applying science and accumulated knowledge to delving into the despair of a real patient. Or you can banty about with the worried well and call yourself a freaking lifecoach. A lot of people want to play therapist because it seems kind of cool and people like talking to me, but when the rubber meets the road and the patient wants to kill themselves no matter what trite advice they try to give, then the amateurs turn to us. Maybe I shouldn't be ranting about this and might be ruffling a few feathers, but I know what the stakes are. Just watch the news and ask yourself, what would you have said and done to the person who has enough rage to kill themselves and whoever else they can take down with them. These are the questions a clinical psychologist has to face everyday and in our office is where the buck stops.

 

[Nahsil]

If you're responding to me, I don't necessarily disagree. I think great care should be taken in clinical work. I'm a long way off from clinical work and I haven't made up my mind about a lot of things.

I am familiar however with people like George Atwood who, at least from the outside, appears to have been an incredible clinician with a deep, working insight into the human condition and specifically into helping highly disturbed individuals, and has never been a fan of CBT or solely "evidence based treatment." Obviously that's anecdotal, but I think there's good reason to exercise some negative capability.

Jonathan Shedler's work is interesting.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...here-is-the-evidence-evidence-based-therapies
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/psychologically-minded/201310/bamboozled-bad-science

There are also some people who contest the reliability of a natural science approach to psychology, although I'm not too familiar with that critique yet. Typically people into phenomenology and a more "human science" approach, like the faculty at Duquesne.

and yeah, Campbell is an idol of mine

 

[neutralpalatte]

Okay, and why can't you learn both (metaphysics vs "science-based" as you call it) and incorporate both into your practice? Why does everyone assume that people who like metaphysics and new age, SOLELY care about that and refuse to look at anything else? No, like everything else in the world, its a spectrum. Or maybe just a personal interest. I mean, jesus if you take a few extra courses in philosophy as an undergrad, it doesn't mean that you fail as a psychology major because you are focusing on ADDITIONAL coursework outside the norm.

Not only that, but your state's board of behavioral sciences makes sure that you take certain coursework that covers the essentials, or else you wouldn't be licensed. Same with the 3,000 hours. Whether you want to admit it or not, schools like ITP/Sofia DO in fact, teach both sides of the coin. I don't think people who have never attended these programs, can adequately comment about whats taught in them.

 

[smalltownpsych]

If you're responding to me, I don't necessarily disagree. I think great care should be taken in clinical work.

I am familiar however with people like George Atwood who, at least from the outside, appears to have been an incredible clinician with a deep, working insight into the human condition and specifically into helping highly disturbed individuals, and has never been a fan of CBT or solely "evidence based treatment." Obviously that's anecdotal, but I think there's good reason to exercise some negative capability.

Jonathan Shedler's work is interesting.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...here-is-the-evidence-evidence-based-therapies
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/psychologically-minded/201310/bamboozled-bad-science

There are also some people who contest the reliability of a natural science approach to psychology, although I'm not too familiar with that critique yet. Typically people into phenomenology and a more "human science" approach, like the faculty at Duquesne.

and yeah, Campbell is an idol of mine

Just taking off from what you said and helping to clarify a little bit how a scientific practitioner can integrate that knowledge. I also like Hillman's concept of depressed mood as not necessarily a symptom to be treated. I have found that concept extremely helpful in my own work and you can find some similar types of thinking with ACT. I identify myself as primarly psychodynamic in my theoretical orientation, but CBT constructs and techniques work in the office and in the lab so I have no problem using them. A little symptom reduction can go a long way and for many patients that's all they came in for and probably all they need. For some of the others with longstanding interpersonal difficulties with roots in early attachment experiences, symptom reduction is just the beginning. We do need more research on those patients because I don't always like flying blind.

 

[Nahsil]

Well, I can't disagree with that! I don't see any reason not to incorporate techniques and methods of understanding that are effective, regardless of broader theoretical background.

Reading up on ACT...

"ACT helps the individual get in contact with a transcendent sense of self known as "self-as-context"—the you that is always there observing and experiencing and yet distinct from one's thoughts, feelings, sensations, and memories."

That's wonderful. That's actually, I think, the foundation of mindfulness practice, learning to develop a kind of awareness that's sort of "apart from" from the contents of awareness.

 

[PsychBiker]

Let's stop fighting with her. She is so deluded (and anti-social) that we are actually reinforcing her awful beliefs by denouncing them.

 

[smalltownpsych]

Let's stop fighting with her. She is so deluded (and anti-social) that we are actually reinforcing her awful beliefs by denouncing them.

Great point, and I think that might be why I stopped fighting and just posted some of my own perspectives as opposed to telling someone that their perspective is wrong or misguided. After all, early on in undergrad, I was probably more informed by philosophy than psychology and didn't really understand how important science was in human psychology and even how it was conducted.

 

[erg923]

Okay, and why can't you learn both (metaphysics vs "science-based" as you call it) and incorporate both into your practice? Why does everyone assume that people who like metaphysics and new age, SOLELY care about that and refuse to look at anything else? No, like everything else in the world, its a spectrum. Or maybe just a personal interest. I mean, jesus if you take a few extra courses in philosophy as an undergrad, it doesn't mean that you fail as a psychology major because you are focusing on ADDITIONAL coursework outside the norm.

Not only that, but your state's board of behavioral sciences makes sure that you take certain coursework that covers the essentials, or else you wouldn't be licensed. Same with the 3,000 hours. Whether you want to admit it or not, schools like ITP/Sofia DO in fact, teach both sides of the coin. I don't think people who have never attended these programs, can adequately comment about whats taught in them.

I think you are potentially right about some of this. However, this is really the first time in your almost 50 posts that you have implied any actual interest in the scientific quality of the clincial training aspect of your pursuit. And I still get the feeling that this is secondary to what you feel like YOU can do with it in your "business."

Are you interested in reading Lillienfeld's article? You might be suprised about what the current literature says about some of your implied interests.

 

[chartero]

if anyone's interested in transpersonal, I recommend my program, West Georgia. It's a humanistic/existential-phenomenological/transpersonal program in a public state school.

I've heard West Georgia recommended in this context. For another state-school program in a similar spirit, see the psychology department at Sonoma State University. Sonoma's entire MA program in Psychology has a Depth Psychology emphasis. (No doctorate, and Sonoma's master's in counseling is from a separate department.)

 

[CaliMac]

Let's stop fighting with her. She is so deluded (and anti-social) that we are actually reinforcing her awful beliefs by denouncing them.

Problem is that anti-social ears can often hear arguments where there is only conversation.

 

[A Blue Duck]

From wikipedia:

"Issues considered in transpersonal psychology include spiritual self-development, self beyond the ego, peak experiences, mystical experiences, systemic trance, spiritual crises, spiritual evolution, religious conversion,altered states of consciousness, spiritual practices, and other sublime and/or unusually expanded experiences of living. The discipline attempts to describe and integrate spiritual experience within modern psychological theory and to formulate new theory to encompass such experience."

If this is not an accurate synopsis of the teachings of transpersonal psychology programs, let me know.

I'm all for the pursuit of knowledge in a variety of domains. However, while science is academic, not all of academia is scientific (Also, no one here is arguing for psychology to be treated as a natural science...that's impossible given the spectrum of human behavior and appropriate ethical guidelines). You can be a priest, a philosopher, a goat farmer or whatever, and you can still be a terrific psychological scientist (clinician or researcher). However, when you attempt to fill holes in psychological science theory with unscientific theoretical groundwork, that is, when you attempt to bring these other unscientific disciplines into your learning and practice of clinical psychology, you are undermining the scientific process itself.

I share the opinion then of Richard M. McFall in his 1991 (yes 1991) APA presidential address; "The primary and overriding objective of doctoral training programs in clinical psychology must be to produce the most competent clinical scientists possible." Is that the objective of your program?

And some preemptive clarification, McFall uses the term clinical scientist to encompass both researchers and clinicians.

 

[erg923]

From wikipedia:

"Issues considered in transpersonal psychology include spiritual self-development, self beyond the ego, peak experiences, mystical experiences, systemic trance, spiritual crises, spiritual evolution, religious conversion,altered states of consciousness, spiritual practices, and other sublime and/or unusually expanded experiences of living. The discipline attempts to describe and integrate spiritual experience within modern psychological theory and to formulate new theory to encompass such experience."

If this is not an accurate synopsis of the teachings of transpersonal psychology programs, let me know.

I'm all for the pursuit of knowledge in a variety of domains. However, while science is academic, not all of academia is scientific (Also, no one here is arguing for psychology to be treated as a natural science...that's impossible given the spectrum of human behavior and appropriate ethical guidelines). You can be a priest, a philosopher, a goat farmer or whatever, and you can still be a terrific psychological scientist (clinician or researcher). However, when you attempt to fills holes in psychological science theory with unscientific theoretical groundwork, that is, when you attempt to bring these other unscientific disciplines into your learning and practice of clinical psychology, you are undermining the scientific process itself.

I share the opinion then of Richard M. McFall in his 1991 (yes 1991) APA presidential address; "The primary and overriding objective of doctoral training programs in clinical psychology must be to produce the most competent clinical scientists possible." Is that the objective of your program?

And some preemptive clarification, McFall uses the term clinical scientist to encompass both researchers and clinicians.

Well, it becomes a two tiered system, generally. Graduates of these programs are operating largely in private practices and/or on the fringes of modern healthcare. It wouldn't be so bad I suppose if they didn’t have the same professional title as I do. But they do, and then the public lumps it all together. Thus, psychologists using the most modern, empirically supported psychological science in an attempt to be the best, most humble scientist-practitioner he/she can gets lumped togther with those who cherish and prioritize "white water views out my therapy office window" and practice "Transpersonal, magic rock Buddha therapy" or some ****. It's an ENTIRELY different view/conceptualization of what a "psychologist" actually is and does and what the Ph.D. degree represents.

In the end, the public and patients suffers as the field presents lack of consistency and an ununified front about how it views and treats pathological mentation and behavior.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Moonbeam and fair-dust therapies have no place in a licensed clinician's toolbox of interventions, though there will always been someone on the fringe offering them to cash in on the weak and uninformed. I wish the various professions actually did more to protect patients (most of whom are highly vulnerable) from those crackpots…but that seems to be asking too much these days.

 

[Nahsil]

Food for thought, as far as alternative bases for research and humanistic therapeutic modalities are concerned:

http://www.academyprojects.org/alternatives.htm

experimental psychology can't be a natural science in the sense that chemistry or physics is, but that doesn't mean its researchers aren't using many of the same tools and don't have many of the same goals and philosophical underpinnings in mind. Here's an essay written by a couple people I've interacted with and respect in the humanistic field:

https://www.academia.edu/1843926/Ex...herapy_as_a_Model_for_Evidence-Based_Practice

haven't read it yet, just throwing it out there for anyone curious. Transpersonal is very much a social science ordeal. I'm personally wary/skeptical toward it a lot of the time, I think you have to be very, very careful and rigorous with that sort of thing; I fall more on the existential-phenomenological and humanistic side than the transpersonal because I think they're generally more rigorous and grounded. At any rate, I've mentioned before that I think some people underestimate the power of critical discourse in favor of empiricism. I don't think it's a simple case of one having all the explanatory/descriptive power and the other having none. I think they're two different approaches, both having pros and cons, both with potentially valid contributions to make. Positivism isn't the only avenue to truth, and while I sympathize with the notion that clinical practice should be grounded, that first article I posted brings up some interesting points about the methods and assumptions of EBT. The second one appears to be arguing more from within an evidence based framework, at first glance.

 

[smalltownpsych]

Although I cringe at some of the moonbeam practitioners, it does help show by contrast that modern psychodynamic formulation is not just a flight of fancy which is how some devotees of "pure" CBT might like to paint it at times. Theories of attachment and emotional regulation and making a connection between emotional experience and cognitive expression all have research support and are also grounded in neurobiology. Catharsis plus insight can be very similar to exposure plus cognitive restructuring. hmmm