Psychiatry or Clinical Psychology?

[erg923]

That summarizes the whole thread...

Well, that obviously depends on the setting, right? There are no psychiatrists in my clinic. I am the lead of MH here. So, I am the "main event" I suppose. Although that seems to be a somewhat egocentric view of what I am doing here.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

AlbinoHawk and W19….if you graduate medical school, and if you match to a residency, and if you make it through residency & fellowship...maybe by then you both will have had a bit more seasoning and experience. Sometimes I forget the bluster of medical students, but then I read a bit on SDN and it all comes back. For both of your sakes….I hope you find some good mentors to show you the ropes before you have to fend your yourselves out there, as it can be a pretty isolating place for students who look too far down their noses.

 

[W19]

@Therapist4Chnge I have nothing against psychologists... I should admit that I probably have limited knowledge of what they do... The setting that I used to work, most patients that they referred for psychological eval & treatments almost never got better; it is when the psychiatrist intervenes you can see some remarkable positive changes... In fact, there were a couple of PCPs who stopped referring some patients to psychologists and wanted the psychiatrist to see them first and let the psych doc decides whether they need to see a psychologist or not... Maybe when I get more exposure to what psychologists do, my view might change.

 

[erg923]

@Therapist4Chnge I have nothing against psychologists... I should admit that I probably have limited knowledge of what they do... The setting that I used to work, most patients that they referred for psychological eval & treatments almost never got better; it is when the psychiatrist intervenes you can see some remarkable positive changes... In fact, there were a couple of PCPs who stopped referring some patients to psychologists and wanted the psychiatrist to see them first and let the psych doc decides whether they need to see a psychologist or not... Maybe when I get more exposure about what psychologists do, my view might change.

This isn't a broken leg we are talking about here, right? Most psychological interventions requires patients actually do things differently in their lives. That's hard for patients. Some patients will just want to take a maintenance dose of SSRI, maybe some trazodone here or there. That's easy.

FYI, see below for a relatively brief job description for a psychologist. Sounds like you might want to rethink some things.

"Clinical psychology follows as "clinical-science" philosophy in which service delivery is based firmly on research, implemented in measureable ways, and modified based on ongoing assessment of outcomes. Toward that end, graduate students in psychology receive extensive academic and experiential training and supervision in empirically supported assessments and interventions."

 

[AlbinoHawk DO]

AlbinoHawk and W19….if you graduate medical school, and if you match to a residency, and if you make it through residency & fellowship...maybe by then you both will have had a bit more seasoning and experience. Sometimes I forget the bluster of medical students, but then I read a bit on SDN and it all comes back. For both of your sakes….I hope you find some good mentors to show you the ropes before you have to fend your yourselves out there, as it can be a pretty isolating place for students who look too far down their noses.

Yawn* I remember the "You're just a pre-med. You don't know anything." I'm a med student now, so I guess I know everything now?

Look, you went to school to be what you wanted to be. Be proud of that, but the point is if the psychiatrist wanted, he could do the job of the psychologist but not vice-versa. There's no instance of the psychologist leading the psychiatrist, but the opposite is true.

 

[erg923]

Yawn* I remember the "You're just a pre-med. You don't know anything." I'm a med student now, so I guess I know everything now?

Look, you went to school to be what you wanted to be. Be proud of that, but the point is if the psychiatrist wanted, he could do the job of the psychologist but not vice-versa. There's no instance of the psychologist leading the psychiatrist, but the opposite is true.

This conceptualizes a psychologist as a "therapist" and clinical service delivery agent only. This is inaccurate. I think a little humility is in order here, med school or not.

PS: I am also unclear what you mean by "leads the psychologist." Psychologists are independently licensed health care professionals. We "consult" with each other, thereby "leading" each other. Treating patients isn't a competition.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Yawn* I remember the "You're just a pre-med. You don't know anything." I'm a med student now, so I guess I know everything now?

Obviously that is the conclusion I'd make from that train of thought.

Look, you went to school to be what you wanted to be. Be proud of that, but the point is if the psychiatrist wanted, he could do the job of the psychologist but not vice-versa. There's no instance of the psychologist leading the psychiatrist, but the opposite is true.

Again…not true. Please feel free to educate yourself about the field of psychiatry and psychology. As previously mentioned, research and neuropsych are two areas…in addition to administration/leadership. Areas like forensic evaluation are also highly dependent on training, and often lean towards psychology since we are the developers of most of the objective assessment measures being used in court.

Your attitude is why many other specialties and professions go out of their way to avoid interacting with psychiatry. Of course, you aren't even out of medical school, so lumping yourself in with actual psychiatrists is pre-mature as you haven't earned that privilege yet.

 

[MacDonaldTriad]

This contest is rather silly. I can see how these perceptions can be driven by circumstances. Departments of psychiatry have psychologists on faculty, but very few departments of psychology have psychiatrists. Psychiatrists will likely be “leading psychologists” in psychiatric departments, but psychologists have their own pecking order within themselves in University based psychology departments. I can think of examples where psychologists are in charge of clinical services and are bosses over psychiatrists, but they understand their scope of practice and don’t call the shots when it comes to medical decisions. I don’t care what kind of doctor you are, just put someone who knows how to manage above me. It amazes me how far people can advance in academics without the slightest clue as to how to be a manager. Different set of values I suppose. The product line is grant money, not employee retention.

 

[MacDonaldTriad]

Your attitude is why many other specialties and professions go out of their way to avoid interacting with psychiatry. Of course, you aren't even out of medical school, so lumping yourself in with actual psychiatrists is pre-mature as you haven't earned that privilege yet.

Privilege, or dubious honor? Someone once told me that the infighting in academics is largely because the stakes are so low.

 

[whopper]

Being a psychiatrist doesn't necessarily make one the "main event" vs a psychologist.

I know several psychologists within a psych department held in higher regard than the psychiatrists.

I would say in a usual psychiatric treatment team, the psychiatrist is the final and top guy on the totem pole because psychiatric treatment (that is medical interventions for mental illness) requires medical training. In that role a psychologist is more of a consigliere.

That said, consider that this is only a small part of what one could do as a psychiatrist or psychologist. Many psych departments have at least a few if not several psychologists acting as advisors since our training in several areas is not as good as most psychologists. E.g. research, use of psychological scales, MMPIs, etc.

I don't know that I'd say it's "most" of us, at least not yet - See more at: http://forums.studentdoctor.net/thr...nical-psychology.840736/#sthash.2qKIZuii.dpuf

I'm only stating this because I don't want this to become a psych vs psych pugilist thread that has unfortunately happened from time to time. In general, while I do find this statement to have truth, I've seen more psychiatrists pull the BS treatment approaches. For example, putting someone with borderline PD on mega-doses of several meds, none causing any benefit, or not considering a TSH lab when one is depressed, and the guy who happened to have hypothyroidism never got better, or being a benzo drug-dealer with a license.

 

[whopper]

My recommendations...
Go with what you want more.

Money: In general (but there are several exceptions), psychiatry makes more and has more job security.

Academics:
Psychology: encourages original and fluid thinking more so than psychiatry. Getting published is stressed more so and if getting a Ph.D. a dissertation often-times leads to publication. Such work requires you do something where you critically think.
Heavy emphasis on statistical models
A more balanced lifestyle-one could more easily take time off, have a job, relationships, though yes it's not an easy curriculum.
Psychologists tend to have a much better understanding of the mind in general vs psychiatrists and it's not surprising why. Psychology is the study of the human mind in all regards. Psychiatry is the use of medical science to treat mental illness, no more.

Medicine is more about brute memorization though you must understand the scientific principles. Your clinical experience is less based on memorization and classes, and more based on seeing the problem upfront and with your own eyes. The emphasis once in residency is to get the job done while unfortunately most of the time, attendings are lenient if residents fall asleep in lecture and they do not get tested on these lectures.

A tortuous aspect of psychiatry is to practice you need to pass 3 USMLE examinations just as all physicians must. Psychiatry is less rooted in medical treatment vs the other fields, so much of what you get tested on this brutal exam is not stuff you work on (only about 10% is psychiatry), and if you're not a good test-taker, that can make this examination much more stressful.

Clinical/Real world practice:
Psychiatrists have more options in being able to give psychotherapy in addition to psychotropics. They are usually in a better position to consider the mind-body aspects if the patient has medical problems (e.g. Parkinson's, prior heart-attacks). Financially, there is more safety because many areas are deficient of psychotropic prescribers but have no shortage of psychotherapists given that any mental health professional can provide it (psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers, counselors, clergy).

Psychologists can have more options in providing services that are beyond simply giving psychotherapy and in this area psychiatrists have (edit: NO) training. For example, psychologists could be employed by corporations to increase efficiency, advertising agencies to boost sales, car companies to design better ergonomic products, etc. While psychiatrists can give psychotherapy, psychologists often times had better structure in their own training in this regard (there are exceptions)

 

[AlbinoHawk DO]

Obviously that is the conclusion I'd make from that train of thought.


Again…not true. Please feel free to educate yourself about the field of psychiatry and psychology. As previously mentioned, research and neuropsych are two areas…in addition to administration/leadership. Areas like forensic evaluation are also highly dependent on training, and often lean towards psychology since we are the developers of most of the objective assessment measures being used in court.

Your attitude is why many other specialties and professions go out of their way to avoid interacting with psychiatry. Of course, you aren't even out of medical school, so lumping yourself in with actual psychiatrists is pre-mature as you haven't earned that privilege yet.

The first comment was tongue-in-cheek. I think that was fairly obvious.

Research and neuropsych arguments sound ridiculous to me. If a psychiatrist wants to go into research and/or academia, they will have had training in those fields. It's not as if you get hired with zero experience and publications. Most programs allow time for research for those that are interested in that aspect of the field. Neuropsych testing is something left to the psychologists, but again, it's not like learning all the needed psychopharmacology and the body to be able to prescribe, so it's not some heavyweight argument. The same goes with forensics. Psychiatrists interested in forensics will go into fellowships. You're trying too hard to find a way to justify your field.

Now everyone goes out of their way to avoid psychiatry? Come on. You can calm down with your defense mechanisms.

 

[erg923]

The first comment was tongue-in-cheek. I think that was fairly obvious.

Research and neuropsych arguments sound ridiculous to me. If a psychiatrist wants to go into research and/or academia, they will have had training in those fields. It's not as if you get hired with zero experience and publications. Most programs allow time for research for those that are interested in that aspect of the field. Neuropsych testing is something left to the psychologists, but again, it's not like learning all the needed psychopharmacology and the body to be able to prescribe, so it's not some heavyweight argument. The same goes with forensics. Psychiatrists interested in forensics will go into fellowships. You're trying too hard to find a way to justify your field.

Now everyone goes out of their way to avoid psychiatry? Come on. You can calm down with your defense mechanisms.

If one views npsych as simply test admin and intepretation, that would be true. But this would be grossly inaccurate characterization of the practice of clinical neuropsychology.

RE: Forensics. I do think its quite apparent that clinical neuropsychology has moved to the forefront in the assessment of malingering/feigning/exaggeration, etc., largely due to embracing actuarial methods and advancing that science enormously within the past 20 years. If you look back into the 70s and before, this was primarily psychiatry's territory. But that ship sailed long ago, and it aint ever comin back. Nevertheless, I am sure most would welcome a renewed focus on this if proper training and extensive supervsion was provided within fellowship programs. I think it would be valuable.

 

[whopper]

If a psychiatrist wants to go into research and/or academia, they will have had training in those fields.

Not necessarily. Research is heavily under-emphasized if a program simply follows the minimum of the ACGME requirements for research, and the majority only seek to do the minimum in many areas of those requirements.

Research, for the most part, is extra-curricular in most psych residencies. There are hardly any requirements for it, and a resident could choose not to do any. Even if a resident wants to do research, he/she may have entered a program that does not offer any opportunities, and even in programs with good research, many researchers might not want a resident working with them.

It's not as if you get hired with zero experience and publications.

I've seen several programs hire attendings with no research experience. This is not the exception. I'd even say it's the vast majority. That is for clinical psychiatrists. For research psychiatrists it's different.

As for neuropsych testing, lack of knowledge of it opens one up to being a bad diagnostician, and that is fundamental in all of psychiatry. The fact that psychiatrists don't get trained in it as well vs psychologists is a weakness on the part of our own field. It's also a reason why I tell people that being a forensic psychiatrist makes one a better clinical psychiatrist.

 

[nitemagi]

I did a bit of research during residency, training under a fantastic psychiatrist and researcher. Researchers were in general excited to work with residents, as long as there was a way to plug them in. There's a major shortage and a big push to get psychiatrists into research.

If you want to do it as a major part of your career, and aren't an MD/PhD, it was recommended to do a research fellowship afterwards.

So I agree it's optional for psychiatrists, but the we're welcomed with open arms.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I did a bit of research during residency, training under a fantastic psychiatrist and researcher. Researchers were in general excited to work with residents, as long as there was a way to plug them in. There's a major shortage and a big push to get psychiatrists into research.

If you want to do it as a major part of your career, and aren't an MD/PhD, it was recommended to do a research fellowship afterwards.

So I agree it's optional for psychiatrists, but the we're welcomed with open arms.

Just to expound upon this a bit…any kind of research experience a medical student receives during medical school (or later in residency) may be fine to get a person's feet wet, but it is far from sufficient to actually conduct and/or have a major role on a research team (including leading it). A research fellowship is the avenue to go if the person doesn't already have an MS (w. extensive prior research lab experience) or Ph.D. in research. Ideally it'd be a 2yr research fellowship, as one year really isn't sufficient because of timing issues and there is too much to try and cram into that time. Many people outside of research think they can do research, but very few do it competency…let alone well.

As an aside, actually securing a research opportunity (and actual mentorship…not just "do this lit search, crunch this data") can be more difficult to find. Most of the time projects have budgets to hire professionals or employ graduate students to do the more basic work. If you can find a mentor who is willing to mentor you….jump at the opportunity, as it can take a lot more time than most people are willing to give if it isn't part of their required duties. I usually require prior experience of a couple of years for anyone wanting me to assist/mentor in the development of a project bc there just isn't time to properly teach the basics. However, someone with no experience who wants to do more can still participate, but they will be doing things to assist someone else's project because that is more appropriate to where they are development-wise in regard to their training. It is also much easier to learn the ropes when the data is scrubbed, organized, and otherwise pulled together so the process makes sense.

 

[nitemagi]

Just to expound upon this a bit…any kind of research experience a medical student receives during medical school (or later in residency) may be fine to get a person's feet wet, but it is far from sufficient to actually conduct and/or have a major role on a research team (including leading it). A research fellowship is the avenue to go if the person doesn't already have an MS (w. extensive prior research lab experience) or Ph.D. in research. Ideally it'd be a 2yr research fellowship, as one year really isn't sufficient because of timing issues and there is too much to try and cram into that time. Many people outside of research think they can do research, but very few do it competency…let alone well.

As an aside, actually securing a research opportunity (and actual mentorship…not just "do this lit search, crunch this data") can be more difficult to find. Most of the time projects have budgets to hire professionals or employ graduate students to do the more basic work. If you can find a mentor who is willing to mentor you….jump at the opportunity, as it can take a lot more time than most people are willing to give if it isn't part of their required duties. I usually require prior experience of a couple of years for anyone wanting me to assist/mentor in the development of a project bc there just isn't time to properly teach the basics. However, someone with no experience who wants to do more can still participate, but they will be doing things to assist someone else's project because that is more appropriate to where they are development-wise in regard to their training. It is also much easier to learn the ropes when the data is scrubbed, organized, and otherwise pulled together so the process makes sense.

I trained at UCSD, and there was no shortage of interest from researchers to be mentors. They really want psychiatrists to do research. It's a different market for psychiatrists, because so few of us do research, especially relative to the number of PhD's doing it. Otherwise I agree.

 

[whopper]

So I agree it's optional for psychiatrists, but the we're welcomed with open arms

Oh sure you were, at your program -USCD and that's a feather-in-the-cap for them. At my program (not where I'm at now or U of Cincinnati) it was an uphill battle to get it done. I spent over 15 hours trying to get some type of research experience and was pretty much given next to nothing.

Again it depends on the program, many do not offer any research, or if there is, they say it's research but it's not something I'd call such. For example, a chance to be interviewed by a local paper and then say "now you're published!"

As T4C mentioned, you're really not prepared unless you actually are ready to head something yourself. Simply being the guy that proofread the article, be the dummy who photocopies and prints all the references to other journal articles doesn't really prepare one for research, yet that is another thing some institutions do as giving research "experience."

This is not specifically a criticism of you nitemagi, or even the person I'm directing this towards, but is just a response that simply being a psychiatrist does not put one on par with a usual psychologist when it comes to doing research. In general, psychologists get more solid training on this than we psychiatrists. In a usual Ph.D. program, one would be expected to cut and dissect several several journal articles so much more often than psychiatrists do journal clubs, and when we psychiatrists do them, we often times have only a fraction of the idea how a lot of it works compared to a psychologist. E.g. we usually don't have first-hand knowledge of how to do a BPRS, a Y-BOCS, a HAM-D (oh yeah we read about them but that's it). Half the time the residents are more worried about the USMLE even though it's months away or they're recovering from an all-nighter to even be paying attention.

Of course there are exceptions, but they are exceptions, not the norm. Don't expect to be on par with a psychologist on everything just because you're a psychiatrist. Do expect them to know a lot more in some areas and be nicey-nicey cause one of them may one day save your butt in a jam.

(Where I'm at now-SLU, and I'm still new, it seems most of the attendings are doing research and they are spending a lot of time developing methods to get residents to do more research. U of Cincinnati-the place has tons of research and most of the researchers (not all) want to include residents.

 

[nitemagi]

Oh sure you were, at your program -USCD and that's a feather-in-the-cap for them. At my program (not where I'm at now or U of Cincinnati) it was an uphill battle to get it done. I spent over 15 hours trying to get some type of research experience and was pretty much given next to nothing.

Fair enough. We all generalize from our experience.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

To put my comments in context, I'm speaking from my experience at 2 top R1 universities where research is king. There is a ton of money floating around for research, but there are also top flight candidates that apply to do the work, so it takes a mentor stepping in to really make a difference in regard to actual research mentorship and training. We sometimes work with residents on additional projects (from existing datasets), but that is tough bc of time limitations. I did my intern year in the VA system and research was a component, but it wasn't nearly as easy to find nor gain access.

 

[whopper]

No problem. We've both been on the forums for years and you've always demonstrated yourself to know what the heck you're talking about. My tone wasn't directed at you, or even the medstudent that brought it up, but I was a bit raw because this is a hard truth a lot of medstudents don't know about.

If you want to do research you really need to factor this during the MATCH process. A lot of programs have nothing they can offer in this area other than the minimum and the minimum is not good at all for research.

 

[Frazier]

I imagine it's very school/residency dependent.

At Pitt, research opportunities are in surplus. Our school requires all students to be involved with research for all 4 years of med school. Not uncommon for our students to graduate with numerous publications already to their credit. Hell, I'll be pushing 10 peer reviewed papers from first author through third author (to be fair I did some research in undergrad as well). Not to mention abstracts and presentations.

From general psych, to forensics, to sleep -- faculty are more than happy to meet with and mentor medical students.

Perhaps it is largely because WPIC is WPIC...but anyone from a first year med student to 6th year fellow that wants to do research can get involved.

 

[erg923]

I imagine it's very school/residency dependent.

At Pitt, research opportunities are in surplus. Our school requires all students to be involved with research for all 4 years of med school. Not uncommon for our students to graduate with numerous publications already to their credit. Hell, I myself will be pushing 10 from first author through third author (to be fair I did some research in undergrad as well).

From general psych, to forensics, to sleep -- faculty are more than happy to meet with and mentor medical students.

Perhaps it is largely because WPIC is WPIC...but anyone from a first year med student to 6th year fellow that wants to do research can get involved.

A psychologist friend of mine once told me that WPIC is the kind of place that when you get a 3million RO1, administration comes and pats you on the back and asks, "Why it wasn't it 5 million?"

 

[whopper]

WPIC is one of those programs that deserves more credit than it gets. One of those programs that doesn't have the name-recognition of an Ivy but deserves it.

 

[smalltownpsych]

The critical thinking skills that knowledge of research develops is also a plus when diagnosing, conceptualizing, and treating. On the other hand, knowledge of biochemistry, endocrinology, psychotropics, and total immersion in the clinical realm has it's benefits, too. I wish we had a psychiatrist here because when we all work together, the patients benefit. An NP doesn't have the same level of knowledge, experience, clinical skills, etc than most psychiatrists that I have known and that is all we have. Of course it might be better than working with a prima donna. Oh and the head of our psych department is a psychologist and was even when the psychiatrist was here.

 

[Leo Aquarius]

The head of this or that really goes to the person wanting the role and has the politics to vote him or her in. It may be that the psychiatrist didn't want to head the department.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

The head of this or that really goes to the person wanting the role and has the politics to vote him or her in. It may be that the psychiatrist didn't want to head the department.

That is a pretty myopic view of people in leadership roles. There may be some mouth-breathers in those positions, but the vast majority needed to have the desire AND ability to do it. Of course they can't burn all of their bridges and piss off everyone in their hospital…but that is common sense. Typically the person who rises to be a Chair, Dean, Provost, etc…is someone who is motivated AND chose to pursue the additional training and develop a wider skill set to be successful in a leadership position. It is not realistic to think someone could just step into a leadership position and do it just because they are trained as [insert speciality].

 

[nitemagi]

That is a pretty myopic view of people in leadership roles. There may be some mouth-breathers in those positions, but the vast majority needed to have the desire AND ability to do it. Of course they can't burn all of their bridges and piss off everyone in their hospital…but that is common sense. Typically the person who rises to be a Chair, Dean, Provost, etc…is someone who is motivated AND chose to pursue the additional training and develop a wider skill set to be successful in a leadership position. It is not realistic to think someone could just step into a leadership position and do it just because they are trained as [insert speciality].

Mostly agree, but "qualified" is in the eyes of the person empowered to promote or hire. I have seen WAY WAY too many heads of clinics, departments, and offices that were hired or maintained for political reasons rather than that they really had the credentials to do the job.

 

[Leo Aquarius]

That is a pretty myopic view of people in leadership roles. There may be some mouth-breathers in those positions, but the vast majority needed to have the desire AND ability to do it. Of course they can't burn all of their bridges and piss off everyone in their hospital…but that is common sense. Typically the person who rises to be a Chair, Dean, Provost, etc…is someone who is motivated AND chose to pursue the additional training and develop a wider skill set to be successful in a leadership position. It is not realistic to think someone could just step into a leadership position and do it just because they are trained as [insert speciality].

Why don't you wake up. Politics determines who gets promoted. You are myopic.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Why don't you wake up. Politics determines who gets promoted. You are myopic.

As long as a person doesn't burn bridges, is competent, and doesn't give people a reason to question their suitability for the position..…advancement is not that hard. Of course, most people who claim, "It's political!!" don't understand how to navigate basic workplace issues…and people notice. It isn't political…it is the reality of working. It is mostly sour grapes and/or poor self awareness on the part of the person who got snubbed. If it actually turns out to be political…then you either need to play the game or move on. That's how it works in the real world. Of course, what normally happens is the person sticks around and becomes toxic/malcontent, and all of the concerns people had about promoting the person are confirmed.

Everyone wants a trophy just for showing up, but that isn't how it works.

 

[erg923]

Why don't you wake up. Politics determines who gets promoted. You are myopic.

This is pretty dismissive of individuals who work their way up the latter because they don't leave everyday at 430. I was taught work ethic by my parents, and have found that it indeed pays off. So long as one is also socially competent (which is different than skilled or even "liked").

 

[OldPsychDoc]

'Politics' is a legitimate workplace skill.

 

[erg923]

'Politics' is a legitimate workplace skill.

In graduate school, our research lab was in the psychiatry deparment rather than the university's psychology department. We had alot of psychiatry fellows come through on research fellowships. All bright. I remember being in a meeting with one guy who was really smart, kick ass CV, and was doing some good imaging stuff with us, mention that he would be happy to do anything the lab needed "to get some of these stalled projects of the ground," except "play politics." "I dont do that, he said"

I thought this was dumb statement. And he no, he never did "get those projects off the ground."

 

[Guyton]

I appreciate this thread. However, I think comparing an MD to a PhD or PsyD is comparing apples to oranges. The medical training is what defines the psychiatrist. A clinical psychologist is not going to perform ECT without going to medical school.

 

[W19]

In graduate school, our research lab was in the psychiatry deparment rather than the university's psychology department. We had alot of psychiatry fellows come through on research fellowships. All bright. I remember being in a meeting with one guy who was really smart, kick ass CV, and was doing some good imaging stuff with us, mention that he would be happy to do anything the lab needed "to get some of these stalled projects of the ground," except "play politics." "I dont do that, he said"

I thought this was dumb statement. And he no, he never did "get those projects off the ground."

I don't see anything wrong with that statement because from my experience people who use politics on the job often use reptilian behavior to get what they want.

 

[erg923]

I don't see anything wrong with that state because from my experience people who use politics on the job often use reptilian behavior to get what they want.

Well, your experience is not an empirical study of the subject. So, I wouldnt generalize so readily.

And obviously, the point was to demonstrate that the chap was unable to advance himself because he was not willing to work within the culture of the instituition/department. Noble. But did not further his ultimate goal.