A helpful quote from the DSM-5 for tomorrow

[futureapppsy2]

So, here me out, why not just to go New Zealand. Even outside of election and election results, I've heard it's not terribly hard for US psychologists to emigrate to either NZ or AUS. Can't speak to salaries.

Personally I think it could be cool just to see something different, election and catastrophizing aside.


I'm still salty my dad and I got screwed over on our Polish citizenship by decent. His grandfather had citizenship, but it's automatically revoked if you enlist in any other armed force overseas. His dad enlisted when he got here during WW1 which lost his citizenship.

New Zealand has the most ableist immigrations policies in the world, Australia is next, and Canada isn't too far behind. AUS and NZ will kick out permanent residents if they give birth to a disabled or sick child.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[MCParent]

So, here me out, why not just to go New Zealand. Even outside of election and election results, I've heard it's not terribly hard for US psychologists to emigrate to either NZ or AUS. Can't speak to salaries.

Personally I think it could be cool just to see something different, election and catastrophizing aside.


I'm still salty my dad and I got screwed over on our Polish citizenship by decent. His grandfather had citizenship, but it's automatically revoked if you enlist in any other armed force overseas. His dad enlisted when he got here during WW1 which lost his citizenship.

I maybe…. Wouldn’t remove to Poland… anytime soon….

 

[futureapppsy2]

I maybe…. Wouldn’t remove to Poland… anytime soon….

Polish citizenship equals EU citizenship, though.

 

[futureapppsy2]

I didn't vote for dude either, but can we honestly be surprised? Dems did this to themselves. Have to wait 4 years for Shapiro or Newsom now, who if they were running yesterday likely would have won. And honestly...I don't think we as a profession TRULY understand or get how bad life is for roughly 50 percent (maybe more?) of the US populace. Most of my colleagues who are still in shock (just like in 2016) from this are in the top 15 percent of yearly income, have no kids, and are still essentially grown up adolescents. While the majority of the country is SERIOUSLY struggling, my colleagues are scoffing and looking down at anyone who might vote differently from them.

I don’t think Shapiro or Newsom would have had a chance. Newsom because people not in California tend to have bad feelings towards California and Shapiro because let’s be real, a Jewish guy isn’t going to win. Antisemitism cuts across so many groups, ideologies, and demographics.

 

[The Cinnabon]

I maybe…. Wouldn’t remove to Poland… anytime soon….

What @futureapppsy2 said, it's EU citizenship that's cool to have

I couldn't care less about Poland itself

 

[MCParent]

What @futureapppsy2 said, it's EU citizenship that's cool to have

Oh that’s a good point. I’d thought you meant move there specifically.

As a fellow Polack, I think my misunderstanding is on point 🙃

 

[WisNeuro]

I mean, isn't far-right populism growing exponentially across Europe as well? So, you'd just be dealing with a similar growing sentiment, but now you have to do it with a wider cultural divide, and for some, no built-in social group.

 

[cara susanna]

If things get really awful in the swing state I'm in, I'd rather move to California than another country.

 

[BuckeyeLove]

I hear Vermont is wonderful. I've got a colleague in Delaware who's been trying to get me there for years.

 

[futureapppsy2]

There’s also Hawaii. It’s incredibly expensive and isolated, but it’s basically like living in an English-speaking foreign country in many respects. You just have to adapt to not having air conditioning.

 

[Sanman]

I lived through 4 years of Trump, I imagine that I will live through another 4 years. I may not have the same job I had, but I was always prepared for that possibility. Beyond that, I don't think that the sky is falling. No matter where you run, people will always find a way to separate into tribes. I could run to the place where my tribe is the majority, but does sitting quietly in the majority while others are treated poorly actually fix anything? Not really. Adversity builds character and good people remaining silent fixes nothing. So, I'll stick around.

 

[The Cinnabon]

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaig...s-extremely-liberal-and-the-numbers-prove-it/

Yes, she campaigned more moderately. But, the Biden admin was not moderate. So, why would anyone believe her shift? Relying on the gullibility of the electorate?

I think what happened here is a loss of media control. You literally had the MSM claiming Trump threatened Liz Cheney. There was noise about legal proceedings starting. And, his comments were actually things that people on the left have argued forever and are easily accessible on line. This happened numerous times. At the same time, misinformation and disinformation is lamented. It's inconsistent. This creates serious credibility issues. Her giving pro palestine and pro israel speeches depending on her campaign stops was also not a good look.

Hopefully, the progressive left is excised from the democratic party and the party does not double down on the idea that their opponents are stupid and mentally ill sexist white supremacists. I'm not optimistic.

A proven track record of running in both the primary, and now election, on a very moderate bi-partisan focused campaign. Do you truly believe that the average American is looking up senate vote leanings relative to other senators when casting their ballot for presidency, or do you think campaign messaging might be what's on most people's mind? Further, those of us on the progressive left DID believe her shift and were actively against her policies. Like you said, giving pro Israel speeches was not a good look lol. She galvanized no base and ran on a weak unexciting centrist platform against a "populist."

She didn't run on any decisive issues and appeared republican light. I also agree that the DNC really needs to do better at capturing the young male vote in particular (I have no real clue how they should ago about this).

 

[WisNeuro]

The Pro-Gaza/Palestinian/etc people that "rebelled" against the left and voted Stein or Trump (looking at you Dearborn) are entertaining. Curious how they think that a far right administration is going to be better for their cause. FAFO

 

[Sanman]

A proven track record of running in both the primary, and now election, on a very moderate bi-partisan focused campaign. Do you truly believe that the average American is looking up senate vote leanings relative to other senators when casting their ballot for presidency, or do you think campaign messaging might be what's on most people's mind? Further, those of us on the progressive left DID believe her shift and were actively against her policies. Like you said, giving pro Israel speeches was not a good look lol. She galvanized no base and ran on a weak unexciting centrist platform against a "populist."

She didn't run on any decisive issues and appeared republican light. I also agree that the DNC really needs to do better at capturing the young male vote in particular (I have no real clue how they should ago about this).

Being seen as the party of DEI and #metoo and then trying to capture the male (particularly young white male) vote is a difficult needle to thread. Not sure how that is going to work.

 

[The Cinnabon]

The Pro-Gaza/Palestinian/etc people that "rebelled" against the left and voted Stein or Trump (looking at you Dearborn) are entertaining. Curious how they think that a far right administration is going to be better for their cause. FAFO

Short-sighted single issue voting.


Trump didn't do "better than normal." Kamala was just short of 20 million votes that Biden captured.

 

[The Cinnabon]

Being seen as the party of DEI and #metoo and then trying to capture the male (particularly young white male) vote is a difficult needle to thread. No sure how that is going to work.

Just spitballing, but I've always thought a better idea would be to run on wanting to create social safety nets that will benefit the working/middle class and frontrunning on that while campaigning in heavy blue-collar towns. You can throw a lot of the DEI stuff in your platform (and it's something I personally appreciate), but don't have it be nearly as front-facing.

 

[Shiori]

I'll be curious to see if there is some overlap with the Bernie Bros vs this particular group of young, white males.

 

[Sanman]

Just spitballing, but I've always thought a better idea would be to run on wanting to create social safety nets that will benefit the working/middle class and frontrunning on that while campaigning in heavy blue-collar towns. You can throw a lot of the DEI stuff in your platform (and it's something I personally appreciate), but don't have it be nearly as front-facing.

What you have there is half the old democratic platform and half the new democratic platform. The question becomes what someone views as important. However, for example, if you are a young Asian or White Male, DEI may sway you more in the direction of the Republicans than a solid social safety net. After all, you don't need a safety net when you are successful and DEI could be seen has hindering their progress. After all, all of us were going to conquer the world in our 20s.

 

[Sanman]

I'll be curious to see if there is some overlap with the Bernie Bros vs this particular group of young, white males.

There likely is. I don't think that they care the direction the country takes but they know that it is not working for them now. Particularly if you don't have a high skill level or are academically inclined.

 

[cara susanna]

Just spitballing, but I've always thought a better idea would be to run on wanting to create social safety nets that will benefit the working/middle class and frontrunning on that while campaigning in heavy blue-collar towns. You can throw a lot of the DEI stuff in your platform (and it's something I personally appreciate), but don't have it be nearly as front-facing.

They did a lot of that, though.

Really, if you look at the election data, I don't know what else the Democrats could have done differently other than run a white man. And even then I'm not sure they would have won.

 

[Sanman]

They did a lot of that, though.

Really, if you look at the election data, I don't know what else the Democrats could have done differently other than run a white man. And even then I'm not sure they would have won.

With inflation the way it is, people want change.

 

[cara susanna]

With inflation the way it is, people want change.

Exactly, they were mad about inflation and the incumbent was an easy scapegoat. And even though the Dems had a great plan to reduce inflation and Trump's plan is horrible, it doesn't matter. Facts don't matter. Nothing matters.

 

[WisNeuro]

Short-sighted single issue voting.


Trump didn't do "better than normal." Kamala was just short of 20 million votes that Biden captured.

He did make huge inroads with several key groups (e.g., Latinos, 18-29), which if the pattern holds will not be good for Dems going forward.

 

[Sanman]

Exactly, they were mad about inflation and the incumbent was an easy scapegoat. And even though the Dems had a great plan to reduce inflation and Trump's plan is horrible, it doesn't matter. Facts don't matter. Nothing matters.

Yeah, but the Dems suck at marketing too. Biden and the dems pitched a "Green New Deal" rather than the "Climate friendly jobs plan" that could have included manufacturing and installation or solar panels and chargers, wind farms, building electric cars, etc. Same with increasing production of semiconductors in the U.S. Hard to argue against more jobs.

 

[cara susanna]

Yes. And, in his victory speech he highlighted the multi race multi ethnicity coalition. That should scare the **** out of dems moving forward. They need to think more about policy and less about identity or the gop is going to roll them for a few cycles.

I am so, so, so sick of people saying this. They do think about policy. They talked a TON about policy. It wasn't just "vote for me, I'm a black woman!" They had FAR more elaborative and cohesive policy than Trump did, policy that aimed to appeal to progressives while also keeping moderates happy.

Yes, they also talk about identity to some extent. And that alone turns off people. But there are also constituents who care a LOT about that and will be far more loyal voters than the people who went to Trump this election. You know why Republicans win? Party loyalty. Their candidate can literally be a convicted felon and they'll STILL vote for him. Also, because it's far easier to talk about disrupting the government when you don't have to actually bother governing and can make up fanciful ideas that sound great but in real life would be a disaster.

 

[cara susanna]

I think Kamala gave a lot of canned speeches and canned responses in the media, which made her appear to many to lack substance.

Relative to dei language, they would do better if they jettisoned all of it. They’d still capture the far left.

The idea that Kamala's speeches lacked substance when the alternative was Trump is possibly the most hilarious thing I've ever read.

Did Kamala's campaign have problems? Sure! Did her platform have problems? Also sure! But she was running against Trump.

 

[silverway]

Yes. And that was her primary message. Exercise a little theory of mind. How do you think the typical non progressive/far left views the trump felony convictions? Do you think they think he actually committed a felony of any sort? I don’t think they do. How do you think what the msm/dems did with Hunter Biden’s laptop and the 50 intelligence experts/russian disinformation played in the non progressive left space? Seems like these two issues fit together pretty easily.

Or, as a relative of mine put it, they might believe he committed felonies, but don't think his felonies or characterological flaws will interfere with his ability to affect the legislation they care most about. In fact, they might enable him to do so. A President who is self-interested to a fault is still very appealing if you believe his interests align with yours, even a little.

 

[WisNeuro]

Yes. And, in his victory speech he highlighted the multi race multi ethnicity coalition. That should scare the **** out of dems moving forward. They need to think more about policy and less about identity or the gop is going to roll them for a few cycles.

Meh, the GOP wins on identity and grievance politics all the time. They just know how to massage that messaging to keep the rubes fired up and capitalize on anger and fear. The Dems just suck with messaging all around and respond to things with condescension.

 

[quickpsych]

A friend of mine who is a midlevel at a VA saw this recently, no idea if it's still posted:

Meanwhile over on r/therapists...

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

A friend of mine who is a midlevel at a VA saw this recently, no idea if it's still posted:

Meanwhile over on r/therapists...

View attachment 394953

I agree that history shows that tyrants (and tyrannical governments) tend to disarm the populace prior to doing horrible things to that populace. I just never thought I would see 'therapists' arguing so fervently to 'arm themselves' and in favor of the 2nd Amendment. What a time to be alive.

 

[Freud’sMommy]

Trump voter here. Can anyone help me navigate interactions with my colleagues? I've tried being supportive (e.g., "the results shocked everyone" etc.), but it's becoming tough to do so without ratting myself out. I'm fearing legitimate professional repercussions as the senior staff and admin here are unhinged regarding the election and final LoRs won't be sent out until early-December. Our seminar last week turned into a therapy session for my boss, and I nearly laughed once he started to cry (the guy owes me and the other trainees 2hrs of didactics). I'd avoid the topic but people here talk more than they work. It was fun to watch everyone seethe and cope, but it's getting a bit much now.

 

[R. Matey]

Trump voter here. Can anyone help me navigate interactions with my colleagues? I've tried being supportive (e.g., "the results shocked everyone" etc.), but it's becoming tough to do so without ratting myself out. I'm fearing legitimate professional repercussions as the senior staff and admin here are unhinged regarding the election and final LoRs won't be sent out until early-December. Our seminar last week turned into a therapy session for my boss, and I nearly laughed once he started to cry (the guy owes me and the other trainees 2hrs of didactics). I'd avoid the topic but people here talk more than they work. It was fun to watch everyone seethe and cope, but it's getting a bit much now.

I wouldn't worry too much about it, tbh. I've had disagreements with supervisors who still wrote me strong LORs. The key is hearing their side out, debating respectfully, knowing when to fight, and when to let it go.

In this situation specifically, I'd encourage empathy and perspective-taking on your part along with a whole lot of listening. To many people (undocumented immigrants, women, LGBT folks), a second Trump Administration represents an existential threat. You and I would likely disagree how much he intends to make good on the vile statements he made on the campaign trail, but there is understandably a lot of uncertainty right now. And fear in the midst of uncertainty is a normal human response.

 

[quickpsych]

Trump voter here. Can anyone help me navigate interactions with my colleagues? I've tried being supportive (e.g., "the results shocked everyone" etc.), but it's becoming tough to do so without ratting myself out. I'm fearing legitimate professional repercussions as the senior staff and admin here are unhinged regarding the election and final LoRs won't be sent out until early-December. Our seminar last week turned into a therapy session for my boss, and I nearly laughed once he started to cry (the guy owes me and the other trainees 2hrs of didactics). I'd avoid the topic but people here talk more than they work. It was fun to watch everyone seethe and cope, but it's getting a bit much now.

On your question: Keep your head down and don't talk about how you voted for Trump especially at work. If they don't know, they don't need to know and you'll be better off for it. You're unlikely to find common ground or many, if any, like minded people in your office or in this field on this issue. This is indeed quite different from 2016.

On the parts I bolded in your reply: I'd strongly recommend some self-reflection and some soul searching if this field is indeed a right fit for you especially if you're planning on working directly with patients. You're entitled to vote however you want and to feel however you want, but there's no sugarcoating that this line of work while supporting, with your vote, Trump's vile and violent rhetoric and campaign promises that threaten human rights and people's safety, security, and existence for how they look, where they're from, whom they love, or how they identify may not be compatible. Character matters. You will want to ask yourself how your support for all of this represents your character and how it aligns (or does not align) with both the ethical standards of our field as well as our aspirational standards. Because others may ask the same. How you present yourself and how you conduct yourself is your way of determining how this is viewed. I would try to be much more mindful of how this may impact your biases in working with patients and put in the work to ensure you are able to separate how you feel with how you should do your work in this field. I'm more than a bit concerned that you think it's funny.

To be clear I hope that you find success in whatever path you choose and perhaps this is a valuable learning moment for you. The fact that you did take the time to ask shows that you, on some level, realize the problem here, and probably can turn things around and do good. So all hope is not lost here, but what you do with the feedback you receive to your question will play a big role in how you move forward.

 

[cara susanna]

Trump voter here. Can anyone help me navigate interactions with my colleagues? I've tried being supportive (e.g., "the results shocked everyone" etc.), but it's becoming tough to do so without ratting myself out. I'm fearing legitimate professional repercussions as the senior staff and admin here are unhinged regarding the election and final LoRs won't be sent out until early-December. Our seminar last week turned into a therapy session for my boss, and I nearly laughed once he started to cry (the guy owes me and the other trainees 2hrs of didactics). I'd avoid the topic but people here talk more than they work. It was fun to watch everyone seethe and cope, but it's getting a bit much now.

Remember how you felt in 2020.

Meh, the GOP wins on identity and grievance politics all the time. They just know how to massage that messaging to keep the rubes fired up and capitalize on anger and fear. The Dems just suck with messaging all around and respond to things with condescension.

So I don't know how to get around this, though, when all of the data is showing that Trump votes were associated with incorrect beliefs about the economy etc and low engagement in political news. How do you tell people they're wrong without being condescending and putting them on the defensive?

 

[WisNeuro]

Remember how you felt in 2020.



So I don't know how to get around this, though, when all of the data is showing that Trump votes were associated with incorrect beliefs about the economy etc and low engagement in political news. How do you tell people they're wrong without being condescending and putting them on the defensive?

The Dems need to hire Frank Luntz, or find his left-leaning counterpart.

 

[quickpsych]

Remember how you felt in 2020.

This is also a good place to start.

So I don't know how to get around this, though, when all of the data is showing that Trump votes were associated with incorrect beliefs about the economy etc and low engagement in political news. How do you tell people they're wrong without being condescending and putting them on the defensive?

It's a battle of facts versus emotionally triggering mis and dis information. I'm not sure to be honest. I had someone I figured was a friend who gloated about Trump, call me unhinged and that they felt I was challenging their right to exist, telling me there's be a problem if I continued, when I pointed out that we're still under Trump's 2017 economic and tax policies as well as how tariffs would increase consumer goods (they had said "I guess people are tired of $7 for a dozen eggs!").

 

[Pragma]

I don’t think anyone should be prescribing voting practices to be in the field. That’s disturbing.

 

[Sanman]

So I don't know how to get around this, though, when all of the data is showing that Trump votes were associated with incorrect beliefs about the economy etc and low engagement in political news. How do you tell people they're wrong without being condescending and putting them on the defensive?

You don't and I am not sure it matters. Because the truth is not much better. The truth is that we have no idea if a given president will inherit a good congress or if they are lying about their intentions. The political agenda and the political reality are two different things. That said, if you are a handyman, a roofer, or work in a warehouse, it is hard to argue illegal immigration won't be a problem for your livelihood.

Similarly, the truth about the economy is that we were going to feel some pain due to a worldwide pandemic. How do you convince someone that is hurting the pain could have been worse? You won't until they feel it themselves.

 

[smalltownpsych]

I refuse to tell anyone who I voted for or how I really feel about elections. I will validate concerns that patients and colleagues have and very occasionally challenge or mediate more extreme fears. In professional arenas, I stick to the science of psychology and my only stance is how will this affect us and our patients. In my personal life, I focus on more important aspects of life and everyone in my life has more important things going on personally that they need to address.