!@#% Around and Found Out

[calimich]

I wonder how much you are reading too much into something? I am genuinely lost about where you think I am laughing at blackness? And just for the sake of argument, even if I was, what's your point? Is that now a forbidden thing to do?

my point is that while humor is a mature defense mechanism, it can also be misused. Not forbidden, people have been making fun of Blackness for most of time. Carry on if you like how it works for you.
Also Black and White are capitalized when referring to people.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[calimich]

Confirmation bias is a real bitch sometimes.

might as well add some misogamy too!

 

[WisNeuro]

might as well add some misogamy too!

When did I indicate that I hated marriage?

 

[texanpsychdoc]

my point is that while humor is a mature defense mechanism, it can also be misused. Not forbidden, people have been making fun of Blackness for most of time. Carry on if you like how it works for you.
Also Black and White are capitalized when referring to people.

Are you okay if I don't capitalize those?

 

[cara susanna]

Me coming back to check out this thread

 

[WisNeuro]

 

[texanpsychdoc]

Me coming back to check out this thread

Hey...you used a gif with a BLACK person.

 

[Sanman]

Me coming back to check out this thread

Personally, I blame @ThatPsyGuy and @ohiopsychdoc for doing this because posts #146 and #147. They jinxed us.

 

[texanpsychdoc]

Personally, I blame @ThatPsyGuy and @ohiopsychdoc for doing this because posts #146 and #147. They jinxed us.

I do not deny that I stirred the pot on this. I own that. I am also reluctant to be remorseful on that as well. Sometimes we have to stir that pot.

 

[Pragma]

Once that IYKYK gets thrown out there, all hell breaks loose.

 

[Sanman]

I do not deny that I stirred the pot on this. I own that. I am also reluctant to be remorseful on that as well. Sometimes we have to stir that pot.

Don't care about that...that season 4 comment on the other hand 👿

 

[texanpsychdoc]

Don't care about that...that season 4 comment on the other hand 👿

I know...we are on season 5 now

 

[Sanman]

I know...we are on season 5 now

So, the writing gets stale, we rehash a plot line from season 2, and kill off a main character in the hopes that it juices ratings?

 

[texanpsychdoc]

So, the writing gets stale, we rehash a plot line from season 2, and kill off a main character in the hopes that it juices ratings?

Plot twists are good ways to reviving things I think, depends if it's just been too drawn out like the Fast and Furious franchise.

 

[Sanman]

This is why you should eschew academia and institutional work and just work for very well-paying law firms. They don't give a **** who you are as long as you can do a good evaluation, cite appropriate references, and shred the reports of the hacks on the other side.

I did want to comment on this earlier and I think now is a good time to do so as it may get this thread back on track. One of things that frustrates me is that discussions related to diversity often get distracted by things like proper grammar and pronoun mistakes rather than focusing on the larger issues. As a minority, I really don't care if you make a grammar mistake when referring to me. On the other hand, I do have concerns that well-paying law firms might not hire someone that looks like me even if I my evaluations are as good as white colleagues. Maybe it really will be a color-blind experience or maybe there will be concerns by lawyers that my appearance will not sell evidence as well as a white colleague. Certainly, it is a hesitation in jumping from something like a VA job into the forensic world. That, to me, is the larger equity issue in the field. Similarly, will I get more psychotherapy referrals for lower income clientele than a certain cash pay clientele because I look more like one group than another. We will find out as I dip my toes into the PP arena, but those are some of the larger economic equity issues that concern me as a person with the responsibility to provide for my family.

 

[smalltownpsych]

That statement is the refuge of people who don’t like being called out about their inability to see the forest for the trees when discussing the present topic. NONE of what you said was stated by me and one could argue that coralling my points into that very overly simplified and dismissive statement simply because you don’t like when White men (or anyone really) are encouraged to think more critically is manipulative at best.

I am honestly confused by what you mean when you say white men or others need to think more critically about this topic. Isn’t part of critical thinking looking at various perspectives regarding a topic of debate and bringing up different points and evaluating those points? When you say that any counter to any of your points is just an example of trying to maintain your privilege and I state that seems to shut down the debate, you simply restate the same thing and call it manipulative. I am seriously trying to have a conversation here because I do think it is a vitally important topic.

 

[borne_before]

Hey...you used a gif with a BLACK person.

Digital blackface is not cool.

I just got done with audiobook version of The Wandering Inn. This was my first foray into the LitRPG world and it's pretty fun, if not a little slow and meandering sometimes. I just started the second volume. I dig it. At first I was like, "oh this is a good background book when I'm doing the dishes or what not." But after a little, it kinda drew me in. They're long too. Like Count of Monte Cristo length.

In the book, which started as a webseries, there is a race called the Antinum. Which are like giant, bipedal, ants with pincers and two sets of arms. These ant people are divided into different classes (e.g., workers, soldiers, etc). One day, the main character Erin teachers thirty of the workers chess. This awakens the individual in themt and become "aberration." Some struggle with becoming individual and get completely overwhelmed. For there is comfort in being part of a well defined group.

Anyway, the Antillium who become aberration and therefore an individual pick a name. They refer to each other as "Individual Gary" or "Individual Knight."

I suggest we drop all the wild attachments to various labels and just become individuals again.

Also, when white ppl use the word "folks" it makes me cringe.

 

[ClinicalABA]

I was the one that made this analogy, but I was using teachers as an example of a profession that is losing it's economic toehold in society. That it is a traditionally female profession was not directly the point I intended. However, that traditionally female professions (with the exception of nursing) remain largely underpaid for the level of education expected is germane to this discussion and a serious question to consider. Now I did not make the decision to underpay them but apparently pointing out the inequity is the same thing as encouraging it or talking down to others. This misunderstanding gets to the heart of these arguments that happen about diversity.

Sorry to give the implication that that is what you were doing- It was an (obviously poorly aimed) poory aimed attemtp to point out how fields associated with women are often seen as "lesser," rather than a direct attempt to accuse you of doing so. I appreciated the feedback and dialogue.

 

[smalltownpsych]

I did want to comment on this earlier and I think now is a good time to do so as it may get this thread back on track. One of things that frustrates me is that discussions related to diversity often get distracted by things like proper grammar and pronoun mistakes rather than focusing on the larger issues. As a minority, I really don't care if you make a grammar mistake when referring to me. On the other hand, I do have concerns that well-paying law firms might not hire someone that looks like me even if I my evaluations are as good as white colleagues. Maybe it really will be a color-blind experience or maybe there will be concerns by lawyers that my appearance will not sell evidence as well as a white colleague. Certainly, it is a hesitation in jumping from something like a VA job into the forensic world. That, to me, is the larger equity issue in the field. Similarly, will I get more psychotherapy referrals for lower income clientele than a certain cash pay clientele because I look more like one group than another. We will find out as I dip my toes into the PP arena, but those are some of the larger economic equity issues that concern me as a person with the responsibility to provide for my family.

How to mitigate negative stereotypes and in-group out-group majority/minority dynamics and power differentials from historical and current oppression that lead to economic disparities due to some of the factors you outlined and others of course, seems like a worthwhile discussion.

 

[borne_before]

I did want to comment on this earlier and I think now is a good time to do so as it may get this thread back on track. One of things that frustrates me is that discussions related to diversity often get distracted by things like proper grammar and pronoun mistakes rather than focusing on the larger issues. As a minority, I really don't care if you make a grammar mistake when referring to me. On the other hand, I do have concerns that well-paying law firms might not hire someone that looks like me even if I my evaluations are as good as white colleagues. Maybe it really will be a color-blind experience or maybe there will be concerns by lawyers that my appearance will not sell evidence as well as a white colleague. Certainly, it is a hesitation in jumping from something like a VA job into the forensic world. That, to me, is the larger equity issue in the field. Similarly, will I get more psychotherapy referrals for lower income clientele than a certain cash pay clientele because I look more like one group than another. We will find out as I dip my toes into the PP arena, but those are some of the larger economic equity issues that concern me as a person with the responsibility to provide for my family.

Oddly enough, a subplot of the book deals with how the Antilium came to content and set up a few nests. There was a huge war. But, one of the interesting parts is how the other non-human species are slowly getting more exposure to the them. This exposure leads to a reduction in the biases of the other species in the book. Very interesting take on intragroup and intergroup dynamics.

 

[WisNeuro]

I did want to comment on this earlier and I think now is a good time to do so as it may get this thread back on track. One of things that frustrates me is that discussions related to diversity often get distracted by things like proper grammar and pronoun mistakes rather than focusing on the larger issues. As a minority, I really don't care if you make a grammar mistake when referring to me. On the other hand, I do have concerns that well-paying law firms might not hire someone that looks like me even if I my evaluations are as good as white colleagues. Maybe it really will be a color-blind experience or maybe there will be concerns by lawyers that my appearance will not sell evidence as well as a white colleague. Certainly, it is a hesitation in jumping from something like a VA job into the forensic world. That, to me, is the larger equity issue in the field. Similarly, will I get more psychotherapy referrals for lower income clientele than a certain cash pay clientele because I look more like one group than another. We will find out as I dip my toes into the PP arena, but those are some of the larger economic equity issues that concern me as a person with the responsibility to provide for my family.

I am hired by these law firms without ever meeting in person, or even speaking to lawyers first, the vast majority of the time. They'd only know my ethnic status if the third party who manages this for me said something, or if they had heard from another law firm that I had done a depo or trial with.

As far as clinical work, most of us are so far booked out, I can't imagine anyone would have any issue filling an assessment practice if they take insurance, regardless of demo information. I have a hispanic colleague in neuro here, and because she can do evals in spanish, her wait list is more like 9-12 months out.

 

[calimich]

 

[WisNeuro]

 

[ClinicalABA]

. I don't think anyone here struggles per se (maybe a statistical few) with being aware and mindful of our own intrapersonal differences and privileges - this is a concept I've known for decades, so again, with folks throwing around that phrase I don't think does much in the way of improving situations as it does creates

I think that MOST people here are somewhat mindful of the contributions of privilege to our educational and professional attainments, but I would very much disagree with your statement about there not being "anyone" here who struggles with being aware and midful of it.

unnecessary tension because the implication is a vast majority of people of privilege are either willfully or blindly ignorant. If your efforts are the create meaningful dialogue where people discuss these topics, and not disguised as a capitulation to one side of the debate, then this approach won't work;

sorry- i legitimately don't understand what you are saying here (i.e., what approach won't work?)

third, how is giving preference to a "reasonably qualified/competent" candidate of a certain minority background not discriminating towards others who may not belong within that given or other minority groups?

It definitlely meets the definition of discriminatory, in the sense of it being "prejudicial" treatment. It is my opinion that it does not meet the "unjust treatment" definition/connotation of discrimination. It would seem that that is a major difference in our take on the issue.

I am gay, white, and came from a poor-to-middle class SES background, but I'm white and a male, so does my whiteness and maleness preclude me from viable jobs for which I am fully qualified for?

In my opinion, your "white maleness" should not, de facto- preclude you from any job you are fully qualified for. In my opinion, giving some slight preference to qualified competent individuals from historically disadvantaged (or historically under-represented in some cases) populations is advantageous at the individual, programmatic, and societal level.

Should I be screwed out of that job over someone from a specific minority background in an effort to make reparations for the sins of my ancestors? That's not right either.

You're conflating "giving some preference to candidates from historically disadvantaged groups" with "screwing white males out of a job." While that's largely a point of semantics and rather subjective, I don't feel that it is the same. As I have said before, de facto tossing out the applications of

Additionally, how do we know that this approach is actually targeting the mechanism(s) responsible for much of the disadvantages a given minority group experience?

We don't, unless we systematically implement these processes and evaluate them against an appropriate control. Alas. the best we have to go on may be correlation data.

Are we okay with drawing the line somewhere, or is it simply a free-for-all on anything that would relate to doing X for the purposes of "giving it back" to those who have historically been marginalized? Again, I am not sure this is going to be sustainable for all parties involved.

These are complicated questions, and I'm not sure who gets to decide. I'm not really sure that should even be given much of a say in that type of decision making.

I don't think they'd appreciate my saying or implying "well David, I'm sorry you are experiencing problems at work, but you are white and straight; our data says you are privileged and you should appreciate the fact you have a job."

Of course they wouldn't appreciate that! I have never seen anyone advocate such a postion IRL!

Listen, I'm admittedly extreme on some of these issues and realize that any actual working solution is probably somewhere in the middle (even though I'm correct). I may also be ignorant. Does there really exist a large segment of the population who holds power over hiring andv admissions practices that has an agenda of "screwing over white-hetero-cis-males"? Is this a widespread policy and practice that is putting the field of clinical psychology at risk? Have we overcompensated (based on past discrimination/legal disempowerment/legal and ethical de-humanization/legal ownership of other peoples) to the point where the cards are dramattically stacked against white-hetero-cis-males? In my part of the field (and world, for that matter) I regularly encounter white males in directorship positions of predominately female staffed organizations, where the clients are overwhelmingly hispanic and the caregivers are largely female. I see that I am more likiely to be addressed as "doctor" than my female colleagues of equal credential and equal (or higher) position and ability. I regularly see forms that have spaces/check boxes for "mother" and "father" and "male or female." The staff I work with regularly (mental health, allied health) are predominantly white, English speaking, middle class (and also- other than me- predominantly female), while the population we serve is predominantly ESL, lowere SES. The legislators passing laws that negatively impact historically disdvantage groups is largely white and male (congress has made strides, but it is still 75% male and 75% white- both figures not representative of US demographics). If this is not due to some current or historical bias against these groups, then what is it due to? Genetics? Constitutional (in the physical sense) factors, such as laziness? Cultural factors such as just not wanting upward mobility enough? Anyone willing to go there?

 

[Sanman]

I am hired by these law firms without ever meeting in person, or even speaking to lawyers first, the vast majority of the time. They'd only know my ethnic status if the third party who manages this for me said something, or if they had heard from another law firm that I had done a depo or trial with.

As far as clinical work, most of us are so far booked out, I can't imagine anyone would have any issue filling an assessment practice if they take insurance, regardless of demo information. I have a hispanic colleague in neuro here, and because she can do evals in spanish, her wait list is more like 9-12 months out.

On the legal front that is good to know. The neuro/geropsych folks that I have spoken to do capacity evals or reviews have been retained directly from law firms. Not sure if it depends on the type of work being done.

On the clinical/therapy side, I am less concerned about insurance work and more about the higher paying cash work. There is plenty of insurance-based work to go around. That is where the equity issue comes in, right. All clients don't reimburse equally. An affluent cash pay or well-insured client is worth more than a medicaid/medicare client.

 

[WisNeuro]

On the legal front that is good to know. The neuro/geropsych folks that I have spoken to do capacity evals or reviews have been retained directly from law firms. Not sure if it depends on the type of work being done.

On the clinical/therapy side, I am less concerned about insurance work and more about the higher paying cash work. There is plenty of insurance-based work to go around. That is where the equity issue comes in, right. All clients don't reimburse equally. An affluent cash pay or well-insured client is worth more than a medicaid/medicare client.

True, though I imagine it is more dependent on your patient population than any referrer issues. In the gero world, people don't generally like cash pay and will wait to use their medicare/insurance. So, I essentially treat my clinical work as my charity work, and my IME/forensic as my main revenue source. There is more than enough to go around of both, but I have definitely scaled back on how much clinical work I do based on reimbursement. In neuro, on the clinical side, teh real way to make money is really to be a shyster and offer up a bunch of TBI/ADHD/Lyme's/etc evals and tx. Those people pay cash.

 

[texanpsychdoc]

Digital blackface is not cool.

I just got done with audiobook version of The Wandering Inn. This was my first foray into the LitRPG world and it's pretty fun, if not a little slow and meandering sometimes. I just started the second volume. I dig it. At first I was like, "oh this is a good background book when I'm doing the dishes or what not." But after a little, it kinda drew me in. They're long too. Like Count of Monte Cristo length.

In the book, which started as a webseries, there is a race called the Antinum. Which are like giant, bipedal, ants with pincers and two sets of arms. These ant people are divided into different classes (e.g., workers, soldiers, etc). One day, the main character Erin teachers thirty of the workers chess. This awakens the individual in themt and become "aberration." Some struggle with becoming individual and get completely overwhelmed. For there is comfort in being part of a well defined group.

Anyway, the Antillium who become aberration and therefore an individual pick a name. They refer to each other as "Individual Gary" or "Individual Knight."

I suggest we drop all the wild attachments to various labels and just become individuals again.

Also, when white ppl use the word "folks" it makes me cringe.

Yeah...this is B.S.

 

[texanpsychdoc]

I think that MOST people here are somewhat mindful of the contributions of privilege to our educational and professional attainments, but I would very much disagree with your statement about there not being "anyone" here who struggles with being aware and midful of it.

sorry- i legitimately don't understand what you are saying here (i.e., what approach won't work?)

It definitlely meets the definition of discriminatory, in the sense of it being "prejudicial" treatment. It is my opinion that it does not meet the "unjust treatment" definition/connotation of discrimination. It would seem that that is a major difference in our take on the issue.

In my opinion, your "white maleness" should not, de facto- preclude you from any job you are fully qualified for. In my opinion, giving some slight preference to qualified competent individuals from historically disadvantaged (or historically under-represented in some cases) populations is advantageous at the individual, programmatic, and societal level.

You're conflating "giving some preference to candidates from historically disadvantaged groups" with "screwing white males out of a job." While that's largely a point of semantics and rather subjective, I don't feel that it is the same. As I have said before, de facto tossing out the applications of

We don't, unless we systematically implement these processes and evaluate them against an appropriate control. Alas. the best we have to go on may be correlation data.

These are complicated questions, and I'm not sure who gets to decide. I'm not really sure that should even be given much of a say in that type of decision making.

Of course they wouldn't appreciate that! I have never seen anyone advocate such a postion IRL!

Listen, I'm admittedly extreme on some of these issues and realize that any actual working solution is probably somewhere in the middle (even though I'm correct). I may also be ignorant. Does there really exist a large segment of the population who holds power over hiring andv admissions practices that has an agenda of "screwing over white-hetero-cis-males"? Is this a widespread policy and practice that is putting the field of clinical psychology at risk? Have we overcompensated (based on past discrimination/legal disempowerment/legal and ethical de-humanization/legal ownership of other peoples) to the point where the cards are dramattically stacked against white-hetero-cis-males? In my part of the field (and world, for that matter) I regularly encounter white males in directorship positions of predominately female staffed organizations, where the clients are overwhelmingly hispanic and the caregivers are largely female. I see that I am more likiely to be addressed as "doctor" than my female colleagues of equal credential and equal (or higher) position and ability. I regularly see forms that have spaces/check boxes for "mother" and "father" and "male or female." The staff I work with regularly (mental health, allied health) are predominantly white, English speaking, middle class (and also- other than me- predominantly female), while the population we serve is predominantly ESL, lowere SES. The legislators passing laws that negatively impact historically disdvantage groups is largely white and male (congress has made strides, but it is still 75% male and 75% white- both figures not representative of US demographics). If this is not due to some current or historical bias against these groups, then what is it due to? Genetics? Constitutional (in the physical sense) factors, such as laziness? Cultural factors such as just not wanting upward mobility enough? Anyone willing to go there?

We will have to agree to disagree Alternatively, I don't think we will enact any profound changes here on a forum. I think it's nice to see folks' opinions on here, but not unsurprising, several of us have vastly different views on how to address the challenges we face regarding employment, minority status, cultural diversity and sensitivity. We can all look at the same data and interpret and apply psychology in a myriad of ways.

 

[texanpsychdoc]

You engaged in digital blackface.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I did want to comment on this earlier and I think now is a good time to do so as it may get this thread back on track. One of things that frustrates me is that discussions related to diversity often get distracted by things like proper grammar and pronoun mistakes rather than focusing on the larger issues. As a minority, I really don't care if you make a grammar mistake when referring to me. On the other hand, I do have concerns that well-paying law firms might not hire someone that looks like me even if I my evaluations are as good as white colleagues. Maybe it really will be a color-blind experience or maybe there will be concerns by lawyers that my appearance will not sell evidence as well as a white colleague. Certainly, it is a hesitation in jumping from something like a VA job into the forensic world. That, to me, is the larger equity issue in the field. Similarly, will I get more psychotherapy referrals for lower income clientele than a certain cash pay clientele because I look more like one group than another. We will find out as I dip my toes into the PP arena, but those are some of the larger economic equity issues that concern me as a person with the responsibility to provide for my family.

This reminds me of an article I read in HBR about code-switching in a white-collar environment. If this gets too far off track, feel free to split it out to a new thread. The Costs of Code-Switching

 

[WisNeuro]

You engaged in digital blackface.

I'm sure I engage in arbitrary and made up transgressions on an hourly basis at this point.

 

[ClinicalABA]

As far as clinical work, most of us are so far booked out, I can't imagine anyone would have any issue filling an assessment practice if they take insurance, regardless of demo information. I have a hispanic colleague in neuro here, and because she can do evals in spanish, her wait list is more like 9-12 months out.

Yep- psychologists who can or can be trained to do the work we do at our clinic are so hard to find that discrimination in hiring is not an issue. We NEVER have the colloquial pile of applications. Every applicant is on the top of the pile, and the bottom too! We will throw out your application if you are from one of the big "pay to play" FSPSs (or one of the suprisingly non-zero number of people who are not licensed eligible but apply to a licensed required job anyway), but that's it. If you have a real degree from a "real" institution, have a history of showing up to work when you are supposed to, and have a pulse, we are willing to train you to do this work.

 

[texanpsychdoc]

Yep- psychologists who can or can be trained to do the work we do at our clinic are so hard to find that discrimination in hiring is not an issue. We NEVER have the colloquial pile of applications. Every applicant is on the top of the pile, and the bottom too! We will throw out your application if you are from one of the big "pay to play" FSPSs (or one of the suprisingly non-zero number of people who are not licensed eligible but apply to a licensed required job anyway), but that's it. If you have a real degree from a "real" institution, have a history of showing up to work when you are supposed to, and have a pulse, we are willing to train you to do this work.

Yeah, I need to find this kind of work.

 

[WisNeuro]

Yep- psychologists who can or can be trained to do the work we do at our clinic are so hard to find that discrimination in hiring is not an issue. We NEVER have the colloquial pile of applications. Every applicant is on the top of the pile, and the bottom too! We will throw out your application if you are from one of the big "pay to play" FSPSs (or one of the suprisingly non-zero number of people who are not licensed eligible but apply to a licensed required job anyway), but that's it. If you have a real degree from a "real" institution, have a history of showing up to work when you are supposed to, and have a pulse, we are willing to train you to do this work.

Don't even need that here. We have a local large practice (mildly religious based) which gladly staffs its practice with mostly diploma millers. Pay and benefits suck, but you'll always have a job.

Yeah, I need to find this kind of work.

If you do neuro/assessment, any metro area probably has multiple openings, or you can easily just go PP if you have the startup funds.

 

[texanpsychdoc]

Don't even need that here. We have a local large practice (mildly religious based) which gladly staffs its practice with mostly diploma millers. Pay and benefits suck, but you'll always have a job.



If you do neuro/assessment, any metro area probably has multiple openings, or you can easily just go PP if you have the startup funds.

I have a PLLC here in Texas...but I am not as confident to just start reaching out to attorneys I suppose. I am in the process of doing CEUs for criminal forensic assessment. I have experience doing SSD evals. I used to do some capacity evals back on internship. Much of my assessment background is clinical vs. forensic, so I am trying to grow that side of my practice.

 

[ClinicalABA]

We will have to agree to disagree Alternatively, I don't think we will enact any profound changes here on a forum. I think it's nice to see folks' opinions on here, but not unsurprising, several of us have vastly different views on how to address the challenges we face regarding employment, minority status, cultural diversity and sensitivity. We can all look at the same data and interpret and apply psychology in a myriad of ways.

Yep- while I disagree with you and hope you'll come around to my position, I don't think that your views make you "stupid," "degenerate," "non-insightful," etc. Now you may in fact be some or all of those things (and I may be too), but having a specific position on this topic (other that the "white males are superior and deserve it more" type) is not evidence thereof.

 

[ClinicalABA]

I have a PLLC here in Texas...but I am not as confident to just start reaching out to attorneys I suppose. I am in the process of doing CEUs for criminal forensic assessment. I have experience doing SSD evals. I used to do some capacity evals back on internship. Much of my assessment background is clinical vs. forensic, so I am trying to grow that side of my practice.

Can you juggle and blow bubbles?

 

[texanpsychdoc]

Can you juggle and blow bubbles?

Depends on how much I've had What does the work entail?

 

[Sanman]

True, though I imagine it is more dependent on your patient population than any referrer issues. In the gero world, people don't generally like cash pay and will wait to use their medicare/insurance. So, I essentially treat my clinical work as my charity work, and my IME/forensic as my main revenue source. There is more than enough to go around of both, but I have definitely scaled back on how much clinical work I do based on reimbursement. In neuro, on the clinical side, teh real way to make money is really to be a shyster and offer up a bunch of TBI/ADHD/Lyme's/etc evals and tx. Those people pay cash.

Yep- psychologists who can or can be trained to do the work we do at our clinic are so hard to find that discrimination in hiring is not an issue. We NEVER have the colloquial pile of applications. Every applicant is on the top of the pile, and the bottom too! We will throw out your application if you are from one of the big "pay to play" FSPSs (or one of the suprisingly non-zero number of people who are not licensed eligible but apply to a licensed required job anyway), but that's it. If you have a real degree from a "real" institution, have a history of showing up to work when you are supposed to, and have a pulse, we are willing to train you to do this work.

Two thoughts:

1. I agree that this can differ by patient population and area of work. However, how a patient population self-refers or how you have access to a referral source can absolutely affect your work. Running in the correct social circles matters. One of my old bosses acquired nursing home contract by living next door to the owners of a certain nursing care facility and being golf buddies with the medical director of a different facility.

A few years back, I supervised a younger White clinician who used me as a reference years back when applying to a well-paid ritzy group practice that catered to cash pay parents in the city. When the practice owner called me, one of the questions discussed was whether the clinician had experience in dealing with "well-off" clientele. I also happened to notice that of the dozen or so clinicians listed on their practice site, 80% were female and all were White (in a city there the Black population is about half). So, it certainly did make me wonder about the decisions made regarding who gets hired and what these clients prefer.

2. The larger equity issue that we have discussed in Medicare For All contexts is that insurance coverage, reimbursement, access to care can be ranked rather easily by SES, race, ethnicity, and job. I am guessing that your Spanish speaking colleague has a different reimbursement mix than you might have if doing similar work. Having taken all insurances I can tell you that Medicaid was usually, immigrant, urban Black, and rural White populations for my area. Medicare reimbursed better than that, so old people are more important but not that important. Working professionals and government workers often have the good commercial insurance that pays better and then there are the affluent cash pay (kids of rich parents, or just rich folks in affluent areas).

Certainly, there are things one can do to level the playing field such as choosing areas of work that are in dire shortage. However, there will always be some inequity in the areas that are more reliant on choice rather than need.

 

[WisNeuro]

I have a PLLC here in Texas...but I am not as confident to just start reaching out to attorneys I suppose. I am in the process of doing CEUs for criminal forensic assessment. I have experience doing SSD evals. I used to do some capacity evals back on internship. Much of my assessment background is clinical vs. forensic, so I am trying to grow that side of my practice.

Don't need to direct cold call, you can credential with IME companies and they'll shop you around when they get cases from law firms. There are a few well regarded sch companies that operate in your area. You let them know what your specialty areas are, they vet your CV, and you start building your rep. You can go for the direct route too, but this is one way to ease in.

 

[WisNeuro]

Two thoughts:

1. I agree that this can differ by patient population and area of work. However, how a patient population self-refers or how you have access to a referral source can absolutely affect your work. Running in the correct social circles matters. One of my old bosses acquired nursing home contract by living next door to the owners of a certain nursing care facility and being golf buddies with the medical director of a different facility.

A few years back, I supervised a younger White clinician who used me as a reference years back when applying to a well-paid ritzy group practice that catered to cash pay parents in the city. When the practice owner called me, one of the questions discussed was whether the clinician had experience in dealing with "well-off" clientele. I also happened to notice that of the dozen or so clinicians listed on their practice site, 80% were female and all were White (in a city there the Black population is about half). So, it certainly did make me wonder about the decisions made regarding who gets hired and what these clients prefer.

2. The larger equity issue that we have discussed in Medicare For All contexts is that insurance coverage, reimbursement, access to care can be ranked rather easily by SES, race, ethnicity, and job. I am guessing that your Spanish speaking colleague has a different reimbursement mix than you might have if doing similar work. Having taken all insurances I can tell you that Medicaid was usually, immigrant, urban Black, and rural White populations. Medicare reimbursed better than that, so old people are more important but not that important. Working professionals and government workers often have the good commercial insurance that pays better and then there are the affluent cash pay (kids of rich parents, or just rich folks in affluent areas).

Certainly, there are things one can due to level the playing field such as choosing areas of work that are in dire shortage. However, there will always be some inequity in the areas that are more reliant on choice rather than need.

As for #1, I only do insurance based clinical work, but for gero/neuro, all you really need to do is let a few neurology and/or private practice places now you have availability and you'll have more referrals than you want. It really doesn't matter who you know, it's about availability for a lot of people. You need to do good work to keep the referral sources, but initially, they'll send to anyone who can see their patients sooner than 6-9 months down the road.

As for 2, insurance coverage can definitely be stratified by SES. At least here, insurers like BCBS don't pay all that much more than Medicare, so it's really a moot point for me, I just schedule into my clinical slots purely on availability, never based on which insurance (as long as I am in network). May differ for other CPT codes that I don't use, so I can't comment on those. So, for that colleague, we'd probably have a very similar income stream for clinical patients. She also does a fair amount of IME/forensic evals, so I suspect that when corrected for time spent in which activity, we're probably neck and neck in terms of reimbursement, though I wouldn't be surprised if her IME rates are higher as she can do teh spanish speaking evals, of which I do not know another provider doing anywhere close to our metro.

 

[ThatPsyGuy]

Personally, I blame @ThatPsyGuy and @ohiopsychdoc for doing this because posts #146 and #147. They jinxed us.

I regret nothing.

But nonetheless, even though we are (studying) psychologists and (hopefully) hold a better understanding of the need to push DEI initiatives, I believe this conversation can be conducive to a better understanding of the struggles & implementation of DEI in its current state.

Also @ohiopsychdoc , the writing quality went down in halfway into Season 4 and seemed to completely derail from the main plot in Season 5. But I'm committed to the conclusion.

 

[texanpsychdoc]

Also @ohiopsychdoc , the writing quality went down in halfway into Season 4 and seemed to completely derail from the main plot in Season 5. But I'm committed to the conclusion.

Can't please em all. Everybody's a critic lol. Well, we are part way through season 5, so, maybe something happens and I have to start pulling peer-reviewed articles and screenshooting various datasets....that will be a snooze-fest.

I come here for really 3 reasons:

1. To contribute to the profession and help where I can
2. To seek help from peers
3. To stir the pot, rattle some cages, and see what happens

Sometimes I do a combination of these, or all 3 of these at the same time.

 

[WisNeuro]

Just wait til the final season, it slaps

 

[smalltownpsych]

I think that MOST people here are somewhat mindful of the contributions of privilege to our educational and professional attainments, but I would very much disagree with your statement about there not being "anyone" here who struggles with being aware and midful of it.

sorry- i legitimately don't understand what you are saying here (i.e., what approach won't work?)

It definitlely meets the definition of discriminatory, in the sense of it being "prejudicial" treatment. It is my opinion that it does not meet the "unjust treatment" definition/connotation of discrimination. It would seem that that is a major difference in our take on the issue.

In my opinion, your "white maleness" should not, de facto- preclude you from any job you are fully qualified for. In my opinion, giving some slight preference to qualified competent individuals from historically disadvantaged (or historically under-represented in some cases) populations is advantageous at the individual, programmatic, and societal level.

You're conflating "giving some preference to candidates from historically disadvantaged groups" with "screwing white males out of a job." While that's largely a point of semantics and rather subjective, I don't feel that it is the same. As I have said before, de facto tossing out the applications of

We don't, unless we systematically implement these processes and evaluate them against an appropriate control. Alas. the best we have to go on may be correlation data.

These are complicated questions, and I'm not sure who gets to decide. I'm not really sure that should even be given much of a say in that type of decision making.

Of course they wouldn't appreciate that! I have never seen anyone advocate such a postion IRL!

Listen, I'm admittedly extreme on some of these issues and realize that any actual working solution is probably somewhere in the middle (even though I'm correct). I may also be ignorant. Does there really exist a large segment of the population who holds power over hiring andv admissions practices that has an agenda of "screwing over white-hetero-cis-males"? Is this a widespread policy and practice that is putting the field of clinical psychology at risk? Have we overcompensated (based on past discrimination/legal disempowerment/legal and ethical de-humanization/legal ownership of other peoples) to the point where the cards are dramattically stacked against white-hetero-cis-males? In my part of the field (and world, for that matter) I regularly encounter white males in directorship positions of predominately female staffed organizations, where the clients are overwhelmingly hispanic and the caregivers are largely female. I see that I am more likiely to be addressed as "doctor" than my female colleagues of equal credential and equal (or higher) position and ability. I regularly see forms that have spaces/check boxes for "mother" and "father" and "male or female." The staff I work with regularly (mental health, allied health) are predominantly white, English speaking, middle class (and also- other than me- predominantly female), while the population we serve is predominantly ESL, lowere SES. The legislators passing laws that negatively impact historically disdvantage groups is largely white and male (congress has made strides, but it is still 75% male and 75% white- both figures not representative of US demographics). If this is not due to some current or historical bias against these groups, then what is it due to? Genetics? Constitutional (in the physical sense) factors, such as laziness? Cultural factors such as just not wanting upward mobility enough? Anyone willing to go there?

As someone who has hired people for clinical position, I completely agree with making hiring decisions that take into account a preference for diversity. I think it can make sense for a variety of reasons including benefit to patients and society. I have also found that this is not always easy to accomplish. Reasons why? Definitely historical oppression and bias is part of that. Socioeconomic factors also plays a role which also ties into same oppression and bias.
I also see the dominance of white male leadership and it plays out even more in the business side of things than the clinical and I find it pretty appalling at times.

One question I have for anyone about some of this is, as a whitish sort of male myself in a leadership position that has benefited from a system that is stacked in my favor, what exactly should I do other than do my best to be fair and aware. I honestly feel that I can’t ask that question without being attacked and so the last few years I have just kept my head down, worked hard and keep my mouth shut. Truth is that if I stepped out of the way, the job doesn’t go to a minority psychologist, it goes to the white bro suit dudes equity investors who make all the money and really run the show.

 

[Sanman]

As someone who has hired people for clinical position, I completely agree with making hiring decisions that take into account a preference for diversity. I think it can make sense for a variety of reasons including benefit to patients and society. I have also found that this is not always easy to accomplish. Reasons why? Definitely historical oppression and bias is part of that. Socioeconomic factors also plays a role which also ties into same oppression and bias.
I also see the dominance of white male leadership and it plays out even more in the business side of things than the clinical and I find it pretty appalling at times.

One question I have for anyone about some of this is, as a whitish sort of male myself in a leadership position that has benefited from a system that is stacked in my favor, what exactly should I do other than do my best to be fair and aware. I honestly feel that I can’t ask that question without being attacked and so the last few years I have just kept my head down, worked hard and keep my mouth shut. Truth is that if I stepped out of the way, the job doesn’t go to a minority psychologist, it goes to the white bro suit dudes equity investors who make all the money and really run the show.

I have significant thoughts about this and not enough time to share them all now. Your last sentence is the sad truth regarding a lot health practice now. Before leaving my last position, I realized that I had all the skills that my boss had. I simply did not have access to those with the type of funds to bankroll a larger type of practice. Psychology likes to eat their young rather than helping. I have never understood the lack of partnerships that are so prevalent among physicians and non-existent in our world. Perhaps it is the relatively low startup costs that create this problem.

That said, I think a lot of what makes for good diversity is what makes for a good supervisor. Be a good mentor, give your employees a chance to shine, listen to their ideas and their goals for their career, reward them accordingly if they deserve it. One of the major reasons that I left my old job is the lack of autonomy I felt even as a supervisor/clinician with a proven track record of excellence. They had put employee satisfaction so low on the list of business concerns that it came back to bite them repeatedly.

 

[ianslo]

I don't think anyone is saying that DEI work is not important. However, I do think that as @Fan_of_Meehl pointed the question becomes how do you implement it. It's easy to take shots at white males, but the issue I often struggle with is that DEI work often becomes less about diversity and feels more like a power struggle with different groups at the table. If there are no white males in positions of power, but all white females is that progress or just demographics changes? How about a group that is all gay and lesbian except for one cis-gendered male? Often, my experiences in DEI groups have been less about true diversity and more about the next most powerful block of people that are not white cisgendered males pushing for an agenda for their group. This often makes me check out and lose interest as it feels like it is less about diversity and more about self-interest.

You say "pushing their agenda", I say "asking for the most basic level of representation". Straight, white males have been the primary representation in just about everything since the beginning of time. It's time to share the spotlight a bit.

 

[texanpsychdoc]

You say "pushing their agenda", I say "asking for the most basic level of representation". Straight, white males have been the primary representation in just about everything since the beginning of time. It's time to share the spotlight a bit.

Yeah...let's tell white folks to sit it out for the next 300 years to pay for reparations...that should go over well in the long run. *cue season 6*

 

[Sanman]

You say "pushing their agenda", I say "asking for the most basic level of representation". Straight, white males have been the primary representation in just about everything since the beginning of time. It's time to share the spotlight a bit.

And that would be fine if they were asking for basic representation for ALL groups. Often though, it is just a seat at the table for the group that they identify with personally. If I don't belong to either group in question, do I care?

 

[ianslo]

Yeah...let's tell white folks to sit it out for the next 300 years to pay for reparations...that should go over well in the long run. *cue season 6*

You missed the share the spotlight part of my post. White people aren't going anywhere anytime soon. We're going to be just fine.