Considering a PsyD. Help?

[Waiting4Change]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Hello all,

I am currently an undergraduate student, majoring in philosophy.
I have the goal of eventually setting up a private practice in psychotherapy/psychoanalysis.
I would like do therapy part-time, and with the rest pursue other interests.
I would like to a therapist that has a good name, a good reputation, and would like to steer as clear as possible from spending too much time reaching out for clients.
I feel like having a PsyD would place me above some of the other therapists in the field (those practicing with an LCSW for instance), especially with people browsing net-databases for therapists more and more.
I have two concerns,
one: That I may have to drop my major in Philosophy (which I love) and switch to Psychology (which because of a lack of experience, am not so sure I will enjoy as much).
and two: That in order to get into a respectable school for the purpose of attaining a PsyD, would require me to do many things, that I may not be otherwise interested in (certain psych. courses etc., fussing over my resume, and whether I have enough research experience etc.)

On top of that, I'm not sure that having a PsyD will be essential for what I would eventually like to achieve i.e. a successful part-time (in-home) private practice, which could financially sustain the existence of a single person in an urban setting.
Will it really give me an edge over the LCSWs in my area?

By the way, I'm relatively well-off, so the cost of schooling is not a major concern.

What do you all think?

A PsyD program is a TON of work and a long-term commitment. I wouldn't suggest attending a doctorate program if you only plan to only use that degree part-time. If you want to go all the way, if should be in something that you REALLY love and want to do for the rest of your life. I would say that if you aren't interested in the psychology courses, getting work experience to confirm that this field won't burn you out, reaching out for clients, and lots of resume editing, then a PsyD program may not be the best fit for you.

If you're still an undergrad, you have plenty of time to figure things out! 🙂 Try volunteering in the psych field to see if it's something you could potentially do in the long term. Don't drop your philosophy degree if you love it! Try taking a psych class or two and go from there.

I think it's great that you're thinking about graduate school as an undergrad though. You probably are likely to continue your education in some field or another.

Best

 

[ToTheLighthouse]

A PsyD program is a TON of work and a long-term commitment. I wouldn't suggest attending a doctorate program if you only plan to only use that degree part-time. If you want to go all the way, if should be in something that you REALLY love and want to do for the rest of your life. I would say that if you aren't interested in the psychology courses, getting work experience to confirm that this field won't burn you out, reaching out for clients, and lots of resume editing, then a PsyD program may not be the best fit for you.

If you're still an undergrad, you have plenty of time to figure things out! 🙂 Try volunteering in the psych field to see if it's something you could potentially do in the long term. Don't drop your philosophy degree if you love it! Try taking a psych class or two and go from there.

I think it's great that you're thinking about graduate school as an undergrad though. You probably are likely to continue your education in some field or another.

Best

Well,
I'd like to be a therapist.
I'd also like to be a competent therapist.
I'd also like a stable private practice to be feasible for me, without a perpetual scrambling about in search of clients.
Won't having a PsyD, be more likely to draw clients to me than a LCSW?

I'd also like to keep the possibility of life-coaching open.

I want to keep this as a part-time job for many reasons.
One, I don't need a really high income to live in the way I want to.
Two, I'd like to have time to write, about many things, about my practice, other ideas that I have. (wouldn't it be better to have a PsyD attached to my name in my search for a possible publisher?)
Three, I'd like to be involved in the arts-community, possibly make some kind of income through that, but I would not want to rely on my involvement in the art-world to be lucrative.
Four, I would like to keep it as fulfilling an occupation as possible, and not overdo it to the extent that I become jaded, or sick of what I do.

I'd eventually like to have a choice over what clients I choose to take on.

If I do go for a PsyD I'd be looking for a school that primarily takes a psychodynamic/psychoanalitic approach though I'm certainly open to all effective modalities.

But, I feel I'm being dissuaded from the pursuit of a PsyD...
Would I be able to achieve my stated ends with an LCSW?

 

[erg923]

Would I be able to achieve my stated ends with an LCSW?

Yes.

And most of us would prefer to seperate ourselves (psychologists) from "life coaches." Its not what we do.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

1. Do you like reading about and working with research? (Not necessarily leading your own research studies as a career, but definitely being able to comfortably navigate around research basics, statistics, and journal articles)

2. Are you willing to have research be a guiding part of your training? You may not be living in the lab, but you will have to regularly read journal articles and/or make some sort of academic contribution to the literature.

If you answer No to either/both questions, then doctoral training is probably not the right path. Research is (and should continue to be) a strong influence on doctoral training and the profession....whether you finish with a Psy.D. or Ph.D.

 

[ToTheLighthouse]

1. Do you like reading about and working with research? (Not necessarily leading your own research studies as a career, but definitely being able to comfortably navigate around research basics, statistics, and journal articles)

2. Are you willing to have research be a guiding part of your training? You may not be living in the lab, but you will have to regularly read journal articles and/or make some sort of academic contribution to the literature.

If you answer No to either/both questions, then doctoral training is probably not the right path. Research is (and should continue to be) a strong influence on doctoral training and the profession....whether you finish with a Psy.D. or Ph.D.

I'd like to be the best therapist I can. If this means being aware of current research, then that's what will be done.

I'm wondering whether, if I don't choose the PsyD path, I'll be able to get the kind of training I desire.

Are there other ways to get a firm grounding in psychodynamic, psychoanalytic and other modes of therapy, without completing a doctoral degree?

 

[Aura5]

This is kind of an irrelevant question that doesn't give an answer. But ToTheLighthouse, I'm just curious, did any of your philosophy courses read stuff by Sigmund Freud or Carl Jung, etc? I mean it seems possibly you like the analytical side of things, life, the human mind (hence the philosophy part) and want to apply that to giving therapy to others, delving deep and all. Instead of maybe the more scientific and/or clinical side of things. I don't really have a point, just an observation. But I'd imagine some theories of those psychological 'greats' of the past might be included in some philosophy. And you seem to have the psychoanalytical emphasis. But for example, my undegrad was in English(Cultural Studies) and Communication. And I know Freudian theories popped up several times in the English side, as well as Jung's theories about universal/innate archetypes (collective unconscious) and how that relates as an approach to literary criticism.

 

[ToTheLighthouse]

This is kind of an irrelevant question that doesn't give an answer. But ToTheLighthouse, I'm just curious, did any of your philosophy courses read stuff by Sigmund Freud or Carl Jung, etc? I mean it seems possibly you like the analytical side of things, life, the human mind (hence the philosophy part) and want to apply that to giving therapy to others, delving deep and all. Instead of maybe the more scientific and/or clinical side of things. I don't really have a point, just an observation. But I'd imagine some theories of those psychological 'greats' of the past might be included in some philosophy. And you seem to have the psychoanalytical emphasis. But for example, my undegrad was in English(Cultural Studies) and Communication. And I know Freudian theories popped up several times in the English side, as well as Jung's theories about universal/innate archetypes (collective unconscious) and how that relates as an approach to literary criticism.

Aura, The answer to your non-question is yes.

I will likely be focussing on psychoanalysis in my studies, and will likely write my thesis along these lines.

One of the major reasons I'm studying philosophy is because I think it will offer enormous benefits in the therapeutic setting.
Some here may be skeptical of this, but it's my experience that people frequently come to therapy with a world-view that they have ceased to be in harmony with.
One benefit of my own study of philosophy will it will offer me the necessary tools to analyze a client's particular world-views, and to guide them through the process of making the shift from a view of the world that causes one pain into one that suits their purposes, allowing them to live more fulfilling lives.
There are other benefits to the study of philosophy as it relates to a therapeutic practice, but this is a major one.

 

[psychmama]

I'd like to be the best therapist I can. If this means being aware of current research, then that's what will be done.

I'm wondering whether, if I don't choose the PsyD path, I'll be able to get the kind of training I desire.

Are there other ways to get a firm grounding in psychodynamic, psychoanalytic and other modes of therapy, without completing a doctoral degree?

Yes there are, but it takes some effort. Another possibility is to get licensed at the master's level (MA in counseling or MSW, for example), then proceed on to advanced training at a psychoanalytic institute. In the end, this would give you a solid therapy grounding in psychoanalytic theory and practice, although becoming an analyst usually takes a number of years to complete.

 

[phillydave]

Aura, The answer to your non-question is yes.

I will likely be focussing on psychoanalysis in my studies, and will likely write my thesis along these lines.

One of the major reasons I'm studying philosophy is because I think it will offer enormous benefits in the therapeutic setting.
Some here may be skeptical of this, but it's my experience that people frequently come to therapy with a world-view that they have ceased to be in harmony with.
One benefit of my own study of philosophy will it will offer me the necessary tools to analyze a client's particular world-views, and to guide them through the process of making the shift from a view of the world that causes one pain into one that suits their purposes, allowing them to live more fulfilling lives.
There are other benefits to the study of philosophy as it relates to a therapeutic practice, but this is a major one.

Ever heard of Victor Frankl?

 

[phillydave]

Aura, The answer to your non-question is yes.

I will likely be focussing on psychoanalysis in my studies, and will likely write my thesis along these lines.

One of the major reasons I'm studying philosophy is because I think it will offer enormous benefits in the therapeutic setting.
Some here may be skeptical of this, but it's my experience that people frequently come to therapy with a world-view that they have ceased to be in harmony with.
One benefit of my own study of philosophy will it will offer me the necessary tools to analyze a client's particular world-views, and to guide them through the process of making the shift from a view of the world that causes one pain into one that suits their purposes, allowing them to live more fulfilling lives.
There are other benefits to the study of philosophy as it relates to a therapeutic practice, but this is a major one.

^^What experience are you talking about? Aren't you still an undergrad?

I say this with all respect, but, finish your bachelor's, do some more research in the area of what clinical psychology is all about, and maybe consider starting with a master's.

No one would be skeptical about the usefulness of philosophy when treating patients. It's the basis of an entire therapeutic approach (Logotherapy). Also, no one would be skeptical about a patient possibly having a skewed world view, that is why we are therapist's and psychologists, that is our business.

Also, heed the message by t4c, if research is not one of your top priorities, PsyD or PhD, then a doctoral degree may not be for you.

 

[erg923]

I would add Humanistic to that list as well. However, I alway find it somewhat vexing when someone with no exposure or formal training in this field bloviates about their view of psychotherapy and/or there (prechosen) orientation. Yes, yes, thats nice and all, but please take some time to think about the actual realties of being a clinical scientist (that IS what a psychologist is) in a modern clinical practice. That is, wake up and smell the EST coffee.....

Keep your interest in dynamic theories, but know that if you commit to a doctoral level training in psychology, you have to have ligetimate interest in psychological science as well. Moreover, the reality of PP is that is takes a significant amount of work (clients just don't just come a runnin) and an astute business sense. Even more so if you desire to have a cash only PP, the only viable route if you choose to engage in non-EST treatment models.

if you still wanna pursue doctoral training, also know that admission is competitive. Start volunteering in professors labs to get research experience and pursue avenues to get some clinical exposure/experience.

 

[ToTheLighthouse]

I would add Humanistic to that list as well. However, I alway find it somewhat vexing when someone with no exposure or formal training in this field bloviates about their view of psychotherapy and/or there (prechosen) orientation. Yes, yes, thats nice and all, but please take some time to think about the actual realties of being a clinical scientist (that IS what a psychologist is) in a modern clinical practice. That is, wake up and smell the EST coffee.....



I somewhat resent the term "bloviate", btw.

But I understand the point you're trying to make. My goal is to be the best therapist I can, which I don't think is necessarily inextricably connected with becoming the the best "clinical scientist" I can. Though the two are certainly linked.
You're obfuscating the reality of what it means to be a therapist today (note I'm primarily looking to become a therapist, becoming a psychologist would only be a step towards that end).
It's wild out there. Clinicians are practicing in all sorts of ways, from vague versions of psychoanalysis, to cbt, to mindfulness, to anything. Many practitioners are adapting their own modes of therapy based off their personal experience in the field.
In other words, you're making it out to seem like I'm behind the times, and need to "wake up" to the new world of EST that without expert knowledge of which, I will not be able to survive in this harsh modern age of SCIENCE.
And while i have no doubt that EST's are valuable for a clinician to have an understanding of, I do not think that this knowledge is the be all end all that you're making it out to be. That said, I would like to be as familiar as I can with these modalities and with any others that will be beneficial to my POTENTIAL future practice.

Also, I've witnessed many private practitioners who don't strictly follow EST guidelines, take insurance, and are doing ok.

 

[ToTheLighthouse]

Yes there are, but it takes some effort. Another possibility is to get licensed at the master's level (MA in counseling or MSW, for example), then proceed on to advanced training at a psychoanalytic institute. In the end, this would give you a solid therapy grounding in psychoanalytic theory and practice, although becoming an analyst usually takes a number of years to complete.

I've considered this approach.
However, when I looked into it, it seemed like the best psychoanalytic institutes strongly favored Psychiatrists, and to a lesser extent PsyDs.
I was looking primarily at the schools in New York City.

Are there there psychoanalytic institutes of high quality that accept LCSWs? Or would I ever have to do the LC part? Could I just attend an institute straight out of a masters program?

Would attaining this level of training take longer than a PsyD?

 

[phillydave]

I somewhat resent the term "bloviate", btw.

But I understand the point you're trying to make. My goal is to be the best therapist I can, which I don't think is necessarily inextricably connected with becoming the the best "clinical scientist" I can. Though the two are certainly linked.
You're obfuscating the reality of what it means to be a therapist today (note I'm primarily looking to become a therapist, becoming a psychologist would only be a step towards that end).
It's wild out there. Clinicians are practicing in all sorts of ways, from vague versions of psychoanalysis, to cbt, to mindfulness, to anything. Many practitioners are adapting their own modes of therapy based off their personal experience in the field.
In other words, you're making it out to seem like I'm behind the times, and need to "wake up" to the new world of EST that without expert knowledge of which, I will not be able to survive in this harsh modern age of SCIENCE.
And while i have no doubt that EST's are valuable for a clinician to have an understanding of, I do not think that this knowledge is the be all end all that you're making it out to be. That said, I would like to be as familiar as I can with these modalities and with any others that will be beneficial to my POTENTIAL future practice.

Also, I've witnessed many private practitioners who don't strictly follow EST guidelines, take insurance, and are doing ok.

I don't think your following...

To go to your original question about pursuing a PsyD: You won't have a choice in whether or not you want to be "scientific" or not. Completing a dissertation is a huge part of doctoral training, and I think you're minimizing that. You will be spending a few thousand hours of your life developing your dissertation ideas, reading previous research, collecting data, and writing. If your primary concern is becoming a competent therapist then yes, an MA, MS, MSW, and then licensing is probably your most sensible option.

In regard to the second highlight above, I don't think Erg is saying your behind the times, I think he is pointing out that you're saying a lot of things that aren't true; things that sound like one person's sort of fantasy-view of clinical psychology.

Also, what vague versions of psychoanalysis are you talking about?


"You're obfuscating the reality of what it means to be a therapist today (note I'm primarily looking to become a therapist, becoming a psychologist would only be a step towards that end)."

And what does this even mean? What distinction are you making between the two? And what does it mean to be a therapist "today"?

 

[psich]

Hmmm. Psychologists are scientists and are trained to be clinical scientists. If that is something which you do not necessarily agree with, I'm not sure if the PhD or PsyD is right for you.

Therapy is based on ideas which are studied and tested. I'm not sure what you mean by "vague versions of psychoanalysis." Evidence-based treatments are essential to knowing how to be a good therapist. Otherwise, how are you going to know what you're doing is even effective? Even social workers and counselors should have some scientific understanding to know how to do therapy.

Theoretical modalities are not just philosophies. The other side of the coin is testing, which is done through research. I'm getting the sense that you are more concerned with the theoretical side of things...

 

[ToTheLighthouse]

I don't think your following...

To go to your original question about pursuing a PsyD: You won't have a choice in whether or not you want to be "scientific" or not. Completing a dissertation is a huge part of doctoral training, and I think you're minimizing that. You will be spending a few thousand hours of your life developing your dissertation ideas, reading previous research, collecting data, and writing. If your primary concern is becoming a competent therapist then yes, an MA, MS, MSW, and then licensing is probably your most sensible option.

In regard to the second highlight above, I don't think Erg is saying your behind the times, I think he is pointing out that you're saying a lot of things that aren't true; things that sound like one person's sort of fantasy-view of clinical psychology.

Also, what vague versions of psychoanalysis are you talking about?


"You're obfuscating the reality of what it means to be a therapist today (note I'm primarily looking to become a therapist, becoming a psychologist would only be a step towards that end)."

And what does this even mean? What distinction are you making between the two? And what does it mean to be a therapist "today"?

Hey, just for the record, I am highly appreciative of all the help I'm getting from everyone here. I realize I took on a hostile tone in my last post, and that may have been a mistake. You guys are more informed than me in areas that I would like to be informed in. I understand if you get offended at an undergraduate theorizing about what being is a clinician is like without actually practicing himself. I understand that, and I sympathize.
However, this does not mean that the ideas I've expressed are invalid.

Philly, Out of a complete lack of hostility, and desire for self-knowledge, could you please clarify what I've written that is not true, and seems to you to be pure fantasy?

 

[phillydave]

Absolutely.

If this means being aware of current research, then that's what will be done.

Obtaining a doctoral degree requires much much more than being "aware" of current research.

Some here may be skeptical of this, but it's my experience that people frequently come to therapy with a world-view that they have ceased to be in harmony with.
One benefit of my own study of philosophy will it will offer me the necessary tools to analyze a client's particular world-views, and to guide them through the process of making the shift from a view of the world that causes one pain into one that suits their purposes, allowing them to live more fulfilling lives.

This is a summary and basis of several therapeutic approaches, and as I said before, no one would be skeptical about this.

But I understand the point you're trying to make. My goal is to be the best therapist I can, which I don't think is necessarily inextricably connected with becoming the the best "clinical scientist" I can.

It absolutely is inextricably connected with becoming a clinical scientist.

You're obfuscating the reality of what it means to be a therapist today

Again, what is a therapist "today"?

It's wild out there. Clinicians are practicing in all sorts of ways, from vague versions of psychoanalysis, to cbt, to mindfulness, to anything. Many practitioners are adapting their own modes of therapy based off their personal experience in the field.

I wouldn't call a world in which clinicians are practicing CBT and psychoanalysis "wild." And again, what vague versions of PA are you talking about?

Philly, Out of a complete lack of hostility, and desire for self-knowledge, could you please clarify what I've written that is not true, and seems to you to be pure fantasy?

Also for the record, I realize that in discourse through text, tone is lost. I don't mean to sound harsh, or hostile, and I applaud your passion for the field.


As for the fantasy portion, this also fits:
"...and would like to steer as clear as possible from spending too much time reaching out for clients."

 

[erg923]

I think I'll add to that.....

1. I would like do therapy part-time, and with the rest pursue other interests.

This is unrealistic until you are an established practioner in your community, even if money is not too much of an issue, as your rep is largely established by docs, other health providers, and to a smaller extent, patients. The less patients you see, the longer it takes to build up your referal base and keep it from running dry.

2. to steer as clear as possible from spending too much time reaching out for clients.

Again, unrealistic in the first several years of a developing practice

I feel like having a PsyD would place me above some of the other therapists in the field (those practicing with an LCSW for instance), especially with people browsing net-databases for therapists more and more.

False, insurance companies (and individuals for that matter) love to pay as little as possible, not as much as possible. The lay public is unaware of what the different degrees even mean. It is in no way a magic title that makes people come a runnin. However, in terms of skills sets and scope of competencies, you will more thoroughly trained compared to masters level providers.

That in order to get into a respectable school for the purpose of attaining a PsyD, would require me to do many things, that I may not be otherwise interested in (certain psych. courses etc., fussing over my resume, and whether I have enough research experience etc.)

Again, mentioning that you are less than interested in psych courses and research does not bode well here.....

Clinicians are practicing in all sorts of ways, from vague versions of psychoanalysis, to cbt, to mindfulness, to anything. Many practitioners are adapting their own modes of therapy based off their personal experience in the field.

Yes, but most view this as the problem. That is, that psychology has lost the science that its connected to (and developed from) by having people practice any way they prefer, rather than paying attention to what the literature says works best.

Some here may be skeptical of this, but it's my experience that people frequently come to therapy with a world-view that they have ceased to be in harmony with.

Thats one perspective....But you left out those who present with more pressing/acute problems than ceasing to be in harmony with life, most notably those who are drug addicts, schizophrenic, floridly manic bipolars, gang rape survivors, or chronically suicidal. Often all of the above. These people will give less than a **** about your "harmony of life" theory, trust me. These are people that need immediate stabilization and crisis intervention and/or social skills training and behavior modification. Now when you have your dream practice, you may not have to see these people, but these are the crowds you will be working with when your doing practicums in graduate school. These are the people that come the therapy in the real world.

I'm primarily looking to become a therapist, becoming a psychologist would only be a step towards that end).

I dont understand this statement at all, but suffice to say that it appears kinda backwards. All I can really do here is provide you with the definition of what a psychologist is..... (albeit somewhat biased from a Ph.Ds perspective). Clinical psychologists are scientists who are called upon to apply their knowledge and study of human behavior to clinical problems. If you agree and are interested, then step-up, if not there are many other degrees suitable for working in a therapeutic context with those experiencing emotional difficulties. Masters level therapists can do well and can be good therapists. However, as you have seen debated on this thread, there is much controversy on exactly where their scope of competence in therapy ends in comparison to doctoral level folks. Many will argue that the extensive training in scientific thinking, as well as the completion of supervised clinical experiences of various kinds over a period of years during training adds significantly to the ability of doctoral level therapists.

 

[Aura5]

Okay. Let's see. Disclaimer: I am not a Ph.D. student, just a hopeful. My undergrad degree is not in psychology. So no I have no experience in the psychology field, just going off of what I've seen and researched in my quest to get a psychology doctorate. As I mentioned, my undergrad was Communication and English/Cultural Studies. While neither is philosophy, the latter was all about turning things inside out, breaking stuff down, not accepting things at face value in the world, how society affects us, differently some mind-twisting stuff. Nothing scientific though.

So that being said, I can see sort of where you're coming from, ToTheLightHouse. (Hence my "non-question" which I suppose was fairly accurate 😛 ). I like philosophy too, and I currently have a less "scientific" way of looking at the world and probably a more general philosophical, spiritual, analytical and theoretical way of digesting and interpreting the world, life, the meaning of life, other's behaviors, all that good stuff. Sometimes probing into the esoteric side of things, I've traveled far and wide mentally on morality/meaning of life/all that stuff. Just my own 'personal' kind of journey.

But I think what you're hoping for might not exist. To be considered a qualified psychologist/doctor who uses their knowledge of the above sort of things (philosphy, broader meanings of life, analyzing the world) to aid others in life. Maybe a life coach would be a better option for you since it'd, I'd imagine, give you pretty much all the liberty you'd want in your approach of 'therapy.' I believe you said you'd consider this an option. Although they might also lack the credibility you're looking for.

Anyway for me, though, my real passion for what I want to do with my life is help others; and what truly interests me in others is human psychology, as far as emotions, deep-rooted turmoil, resulting maladaptive behaviors, etc... and easing the suffering for those who have it. Hence choosing psychology as my path. While the philosophy side of things might be fun to chew on mentally, I don't think that's how the psychology field is run. Like others are saying, it's science, therapy based on research outcomes that show what is most effective to heal the individual/help them cope. To be an effective doctor you have to follow what the research shows. So that's what I will do, since my goal is to effectively help people and delve deep into the world of psychology. I can save my meaning-of-life thoughts for spare time.

Now it'd be funny if there was such a thing as a 'holistic' psychologist...which might give more leeway and have a less scientific slant, kind of like there is for somatic doctors with a less medical slant. But I still think the majority of them get a real medical license FIRST. Learn the ropes the scientific, accepted way. Then later if they want to branch off and break ground with their innovations...fine.

But for now, I think you're going to have to suck it up and do the science way because that is how the field is run. Maybe once you have all the qualified scientific knowledge the field requires, and you do your own research to prove philosophy can play a huge part...you can become an innovator in the field and create a whole new track of 'philosophy therapists' or something. Maybe not really but...do you see what I'm saying? I think what you have in mind is an apple and others are viewing it through an orange lens. But the orange IS what exists out there.

edit: I do think, though, having an understanding of religion or certain philosophies might be useful when treating certain patients. Because no matter how much research you might have to back something up, the patient ain't gonna buy it if it goes against their beliefs. However I'm sure there is research that covers this area, and psychologists are already fully aware of this fact. I've seen how culture is considered as coming into play greatly with therapy, how understanding someone's culture helps in understanding their motives/behavior...so I'd hope religion would play into that too. For example, someone who holds unconventional/esoteric beliefs might stop going to therapy because their therapist views it simply as a symptom of illness.

 

[ToTheLighthouse]

Some here may be skeptical of this, but it's my experience that people frequently come to therapy with a world-view that they have ceased to be in harmony with.

Thats one perspective....But you left out those who present with more pressing/acute problems than ceasing to be in harmony with life, most notably those who are drug addicts, schizophrenic, floridly manic bipolars, gang rape survivors, or chronically suicidal. Often all of the above. These people will give less than a **** about your "harmony of life" theory, trust me. These are people that need immediate stabilization and crisis intervention and/or social skills training and behavior modification. Now when you have your dream practice, you may not have to see these people, but these are the crowds you will be working with when your doing practicums in graduate school. These are the people that come the therapy in the real world.

You might be right on this point. I'm not sure that this type of client (one experiencing severe suffering and in need immediate relief) is the kind I'm looking to treat/prepare myself to treat.
I guess the people I'd like to treat would be considered "high functioning"?

And maybe this is not so realistic, considering the fact that people are much less prone to seek therapy in the absence of circumstances they perceive as dire to the point of being emergencies.

That being said, I'm currently seeing a therapist, and while there have been times I've needed immediate help, most of the hours are not spent as though we're in an emergency situation, where my life is being threatened every moment. Though for the first few weeks, it may have seemed this way to me. The majority of the therapy hour is spent talking, about the problems that brought me into therapy, but also just general relationship building.
The relationship, the connection we've been able to cultivate, is what's really helping me move forward.

I want to see clients like myself (high-functioning/able to converse with)

Unrealistic?

I am considering life-coaching (possibly both)

I'm primarily looking to become a therapist, becoming a psychologist would only be a step towards that end).

I dont understand this statement at all, but suffice to say that it appears kinda backwards. All I can really do here is provide you with the definition of what a psychologist is..... (albeit somewhat biased from a Ph.Ds perspective). Clinical psychologists are scientists who are called upon to apply their knowledge and study of human behavior to clinical problems. If you agree and are interested, then step-up, if not there are many other degrees suitable for working in a therapeutic context with those experiencing emotional difficulties. Masters level therapists can do well and can be good therapists. However, as you have seen debated on this thread, there is much controversy on exactly where their scope of competence in therapy ends in comparison to doctoral level folks. Many will argue that the extensive training in scientific thinking, as well as the completion of supervised clinical experiences of various kinds over a period of years during training adds significantly to the ability of doctoral level therapists.

What I mean to say, is that I'd like to place quality and results of a modality, over whether this modality has been(or can be) empirically validated.
There are many aspects of the therapist-client relationship that cannot be tested, because they are unique to each particular relationship.

Psychoanalysis, for instance.
The results will vary, according to the particular therapist, his skills, his way of relating to people, the unique qualities (however subtle) of the way he interprets his client.
You could say that psychoanalytic training attempts to iron out these idiosyncrasies as much as possible.
But every relationship is unique.
Therapies grounded on a strong therapist-client connection cannot really be empirically tested.
How does one test the strength of a relationship? A survey would be biased and unreliable. We just can't do it yet (and possibly will never be able to)

In other words, empirical testing is not the only way to get to the truth, and there are some truths that testing is simply incapable of accessing.

In a long-winded, but hopefully clear way.
I mean to say, that if I become a therapist, I wouldn't want to let the fact that a certain strategy is not/cannot be empirically validated, keep me from utilizing this strategy should I consider it beneficial.

 

[erg923]

Not unrealistic, especially if you apply to counseling psych programs (although counseling psych programs generally hold to the scientist-practitioner model of training and there are few if any Psy.D programs in counseling psychology). Again, the point was to convey that part of doctoral-level training in clnical psychology requires seeing severely disturbed individuals who have problems and disabilities (psychiatric, cognitive, intellectual, etc) so pronounced that discussing "existentialism" would largely be a waste of time for both of you. Hence, your idealized view of the therapeutic hour will likely not materialize until well after you are out of grad school and are only seeing the clients of your choice in your own practice. In grad school, you see a variety of clients (you dont get to pick and chose who you see), and what you do in the therapy room is often dictated by your supervisors orientation and advice/guidance.

Once you are licensed, no one micromanages your practice and no one says you cant use this or that modality if best evidence measures fail. Again the point was to convey that psychology is much more science-based than you seem to be really interested in. I also haven't heard you discuss any interest in statistics, psychological testing, psychometric theory, etc. This a large part of what psychologists are trained in during grad school. At least one or more of your practicums in grad school will be devoted to intellectual (i.e., IQ) and cognitive assessment, personality testing, and writing integrated diagnostic reports.

 

[ToTheLighthouse]

Alright,
VERY helpful.
I came in not knowing much about what a PsyD is/requires, and feel much more informed.

I'm still processing all of this information.

I'm leaning away from the PsyD.
towards attaining an LCSW with later training at a psychoanalytic institute.

And perhaps these topics are beyond the bounds of this forum to address.
If this is the case, do any of you know of places where I can get information/converse with people about both the path to an LCSW and psychoanalytic certification?

However, if any of you feel up to it,
I have a few questions:

What kind of curriculum do MSW programs focus on?

What about LPCs? It seems like psychoanalytic institutions don't accept applicants with these degrees?

What are some quality institutions?
I live in Chicago. How does the Chicago institute compare to others?

Again, if these issues are beyond the scope of this board to discuss,
could anyone point me to a more appropriate place?

 

[robinsena]

Unless ToTheLighthouse finds a PhD program that has no research focus in it, I don't know if he/she would be happy in a PhD program. I would think in most cases you would have to demonstrate at least some interest in empirical research to be a competitive applicant in a PhD program. But seeing as I don't know about all PhD programs out there, perhaps there are some where there will be no emphasis on research. I'm simply talking about admission chances; I'm not generalizing that all PhD-bound psychologists use ESTs and do research 100% of the time.

I don't think I'd lean away from the doctoral level. I wouldn't get a psyD or an LCSW, I'd get a phd. It seems like you're interested in insight oriented therapy with people that are going through existential crises or other such quandaries. That's not a bad idea. Contrary to others here, I don't see this as an appropriate application of the LCSW, which is focused on supportive therapy and case management. With the PhD, given the right mentor, you'd go a lot further toward your goal, in my opinion.

 

[Aura5]

I might still suggest what I said in my long-winded posted which goes with the others. Get a doctorate FIRST and then if you want to be innovative/selective later, that's your prerogative as long as it's not breaking ethics or something. Like alternative/holistic doctors, they might break from the norm of medicine but the valid ones still have the same traditional medical training as everyone else. Then like Jon Snow said, you can 'advertise' or to referrals explain yourself as treating those with philosophical/existential crises.

And yes from what I've read/heard, counseling Ph.D. purports to be oriented with more 'healthy' clients. I'm still on the fence of clinical versus counseling psych. And I would prefer higher functioning clients, too, (not the severely schizophrenic or psychotic) but I think you can get there with clinical psychology too after grad. (Like the others said).

There's this thing called the Insider's Guide to Getting into Graduate Psychology...might have the title wrong. But at the end they list a long list of accredited Clinical and Counseling Pyschology program which lists research interests, clincial opportunties AND the theoretical orientation of the faculty (cognitive-behavioral, psychoanalytical, humanistic). Psychodynamic catches my eye, too...so I'll tell you that there seemed to be a lot less of those and more of cognitive...BUT there were some more psychoanalytically based. That might be a good book for you to have as a starting point, so you can try and pick a school more oriented that way.

 

[KillerDiller]

That being said, I'm currently seeing a therapist, and while there have been times I've needed immediate help, most of the hours are not spent as though we're in an emergency situation, where my life is being threatened every moment. Though for the first few weeks, it may have seemed this way to me. The majority of the therapy hour is spent talking, about the problems that brought me into therapy, but also just general relationship building.
The relationship, the connection we've been able to cultivate, is what's really helping me move forward.

I don't know if this is helpful at all, but if you do decide you are interested in learning empirical approaches and pursuing doctoral level work you may want to look into interpersonal psychotherapy. IPT is an empirically supported treatment that focuses on the relationship between the client and the therapist as well as other relationships that are happening in the client's life.

 

[robinsena]

Great suggestion re: IPT.

Actually it may be good to remain open-minded about what treatments you are interested in. You never know what will suit your style as a therapist. Sometimes it's interesting to learn the theory behind therapeutic orientations. Not to minimize their differences, but often when you look at the theories they can sound like different ways/means to achieve the same ends (this happened to me when my academic advisor and practicum supervisor coined one intervention I used in two different ways: my advisor said I was using behavioral modeling, my supervisor said I was using object-relation theory!). Keep an open mind regarding what types of psychotherapy you're interested in learning - people do change in grad school, after all. 🙂

I don't know if this is helpful at all, but if you do decide you are interested in learning empirical approaches and pursuing doctoral level work you may want to look into interpersonal psychotherapy. IPT is an empirically supported treatment that focuses on the relationship between the client and the therapist as well as other relationships that are happening in the client's life.

 

[Jezebel09]

You might want to look (ie., check out the website) into clinical psychology at Duquesne University. When I was researching programs, I seem to remember it having some faculty that were concerned with existential issues and religion and philosophy.

If you decide that you do want to engage in research for at least the amount of time it takes to get a doctorate, you may want to look into their program.

 

[jnine]

mabye a psyD at the wright institute would fit you well?

http://www.wi.edu/program.html

i dont see it explicitly stated on their website but i hear their program is very psychoanalytic. i've heard from a student in a similar program that their first practicums consist of analyzing older folks.

 

[ToTheLighthouse]

I don't think I'd lean away from the doctoral level. I wouldn't get a psyD or an LCSW, I'd get a phd. It seems like you're interested in insight oriented therapy with people that are going through existential crises or other such quandaries. That's not a bad idea. Contrary to others here, I don't see this as an appropriate application of the LCSW, which is focused on supportive therapy and case management. With the PhD, given the right mentor, you'd go a lot further toward your goal, in my opinion.

Jon,

I just figured PsyD was the best of the two for me because I am not a psych major in undergrad.
As of now, I'd really like to focus on my studies in philosophy.

I assumed that a PsyD program would be more open to this kind of student whereas a PhD program would have much more restricted admission qualifications.

The thing is, I don't want to drop what I love now, and put my full efforts into pumping up my resume for PhD applications.

That said, I have no research experience, only have a vague idea of what it entails, so I can't say whether I'd enjoy research or not.
I also have no other kind of experience that I could put on a resume at this point.
So while I know for both PsyD admittance and PhD, I'll need some kind of experience.
I just assumed that PsyD programs would be more lenient.
This goes double for MSW programs.

And What is a PhD in counseling? Is that equally research heavy?Is it difficult to gain admittance into a program?

Also, and this is a BIG also,
and this is the cause for much discontent on these boards (this thread at least).

Why should I put myself through the stresses of being admitted into and completing a doctoral degree program, when I can get to the point I'd like to be through much less stressful means (MSW, maybe others)?

If in private practice, they both get paid relatively the same amount, are able to find the same amount of clients (based on their business sense), and in some instances it's more difficult for a Ph/PsyD to find clients, what is my incentive for putting myself through a doctoral program?

If it's just about better training, I'm not 100% convinced that I couldn't attain the same degree of training through other means (psychoanalytic/other institutions).

So I'm wondering, if PhDs and PsyDs are so difficult to get into and complete, what IS the incentive???

 

[ToTheLighthouse]

I took a bunch of philosophy classes in undergrad. It's a good major because it teaches you critical thinking skills. Plus, the style of thinking is good in a research environment. You might consider doing some directed individual studies in psych or medical labs that focus on behavior. A philosophy major could work so long as you have some research experience and some basic psych coursework. Perhaps, a minor in psychology?

PhD counseling programs can be research heavy or not; there's quite the range there. Less difficult admissions than PhD clinical on average, harder than PsyD. For someone majoring in philosophy, I can't imaging that an MSW program would be at all interesting.

Hey Jon,

just made a big edit to my last post.

 

[Jezebel09]

PhD counseling programs can be research heavy or not; there's quite the range there. Less difficult admissions than PhD clinical on average, harder than PsyD. For someone majoring in philosophy, I can't imagine that an MSW program would be at all interesting.

Are you talking about PhD programs in counseling psychology or counseling?

ToTheLighthouse, I would recommend doing some informational interviewing with people involved in various fields. Find psychologists in your area who are doing what you think you would like to do and talk to them. Do the same with LPCs and MSWs, etc.

 

[ToTheLighthouse]

You might want to look (ie., check out the website) into clinical psychology at Duquesne University. When I was researching programs, I seem to remember it having some faculty that were concerned with existential issues and religion and philosophy.

If you decide that you do want to engage in research for at least the amount of time it takes to get a doctorate, you may want to look into their program.

Checked it out. The program looks awesome, and definitely covers material I'd be very interested in.

However, this is their mission statement...

The Duquesne University Mission Statement

Duquesne University of the Holy Spirit is a Catholic University, founded by members of the Congregation of the Holy Spirit, the Spiritans, and sustained through a partnership of laity and religious. Duquesne serves God by serving students – through commitment to excellence in liberal and professional education, through profound concern for moral and spiritual values, through the maintenance of an ecumenical atmosphere open to diversity, and through service to the Church, the community, the nation, and the world.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

PhD counseling programs can be research heavy or not; there's quite the range there. Less difficult admissions than PhD clinical on average, harder than PsyD. For someone majoring in philosophy, I can't imagine that an MSW program would be at all interesting.

I believe that MA/MS/MSW training and Ph.D/Psy.D./Ed.D. training attracts very different people (and even within groups there are differences). Because of the breadth of Social Work, someone who is interesting in more than the technical aspects of the training may be disappointed. The training can be very good, but I think one of the strengths of a doctoral program is the depth of knowledge, as well as the greater focus on theory, synthesis, and implementation of knowledge.

 

[erg923]

Checked it out. The program looks awesome, and definitely covers material I'd be very interested in.

However, this is their mission statement...

The Duquesne University Mission Statement

Duquesne University of the Holy Spirit is a Catholic University, founded by members of the Congregation of the Holy Spirit, the Spiritans, and sustained through a partnership of laity and religious. Duquesne serves God by serving students – through commitment to excellence in liberal and professional education, through profound concern for moral and spiritual values, through the maintenance of an ecumenical atmosphere open to diversity, and through service to the Church, the community, the nation, and the world.

Well, yea, it is a catholic university........sounds pretty standard to me and alot like my high schools mission statement...

 

[Jezebel09]

Checked it out. The program looks awesome, and definitely covers material I'd be very interested in.

However, this is their mission statement...

The Duquesne University Mission Statement

Duquesne University of the Holy Spirit is a Catholic University, founded by members of the Congregation of the Holy Spirit, the Spiritans, and sustained through a partnership of laity and religious. Duquesne serves God by serving students – through commitment to excellence in liberal and professional education, through profound concern for moral and spiritual values, through the maintenance of an ecumenical atmosphere open to diversity, and through service to the Church, the community, the nation, and the world.

If the program interests you, I would recommend doing more research about it. Schools with religious affiliations are not necessarily going to force their religions down your throat. Agnostics, atheists, and people with other religious beliefs can often do well in schools that have religious ties. . . . Find out about the faculty. Talk to students. You'll get a better idea of the school climate.

My recommendation: Don't automatically discount a school with religious ties.

 

[ToTheLighthouse]

If the program interests you, I would recommend doing more research about it. Schools with religious affiliations are not necessarily going to force their religions down your throat. Agnostics, atheists, and people with other religious beliefs can often do well in schools that have religious ties. . . . Find out about the faculty. Talk to students. You'll get a better idea of the school climate.

My recommendation: Don't automatically discount a school with religious ties.

Agreed agreed. I jumped the gun.
However, this does seem to be a uniquely high focus on religion, especially within the mission statement.
I will have to look deeper into the program for sure.


On another note, should I attain a PhD.
This would qualify me to teach in college/university settings, correct?

 

[Sendtrees]

You sound very young.

Since money is not a problem for you, why are you rushing to decide what degree you need to get eventually? Finish college and stay with philosophy. I can't imagine why keeping your major would prevent you from taking a couple of psychology classes, though you can always return as a post-bac and take whatever prereqs you need.

Then, after you graduate, get a job. Try getting one in a field where you work with people who don't have the option of working part time and devoting themselves to the arts. Develop some compassion for them. Because--and this is really, really key--whether or not you want to work with "high functioning" people one day who are really just like you, you cannot get there without working with and for people who are not.

There is no degree that will qualify you to be a therapist that does not put you in the path of people who are really sick, really poor, or both. You need to find them interesting and valuable in their own right. You will be very unhappy if you can't manage to do this. And you will probably not be a very good therapist.

You might, however, be a decent "life coach."

 

[ToTheLighthouse]

You sound very young.

Since money is not a problem for you, why are you rushing to decide what degree you need to get eventually? Finish college and stay with philosophy. I can't imagine why keeping your major would prevent you from taking a couple of psychology classes, though you can always return as a post-bac and take whatever prereqs you need.

I don't think I'm rushing AT ALL. The kinds of credentials that doctoral programs require would be best pursued as early on as possible.

I am clarifying my goal, so that I can make plans towards it.

 

[ToTheLighthouse]

You sound very young.
There is no degree that will qualify you to be a therapist that does not put you in the path of people who are really sick, really poor, or both. You need to find them interesting and valuable in their own right. You will be very unhappy if you can't manage to do this. And you will probably not be a very good therapist.

You might, however, be a decent "life coach."

Just for the record, my reasoning behind the possibility of preferring higher functioning clients, would not lie in my seeing them as uninteresting and lacking in value.

 

[Sendtrees]

I am not surprised that my post made you defensive, but the points I made were fair.

A while back, you said

"I'm currently seeing a therapist, and while there have been times I've needed immediate help, most of the hours are not spent as though we're in an emergency situation, where my life is being threatened every moment. Though for the first few weeks, it may have seemed this way to me. The majority of the therapy hour is spent talking, about the problems that brought me into therapy, but also just general relationship building.
The relationship, the connection we've been able to cultivate, is what's really helping me move forward.

I want to see clients like myself (high-functioning/able to converse with)

Unrealistic? "

Yes. It is unrealistic. You may want to cherry-pick your practice one day--join the private practice club. But you will be a terrible therapist if those are the only people you are interested in helping.

The therapeutic relationship is ALWAYS important. This is true whether patients are "high functioning" or not. As far as "able to converse with," you might find--if you actually get a job and work with people who are different from you--that everyone can be "conversed with." Try to develop a desire to learn how.

 

[robinsena]

The therapeutic relationship is ALWAYS important. This is true whether patients are "high functioning" or not. As far as "able to converse with," you might find--if you actually get a job and work with people who are different from you--that everyone can be "conversed with." Try to develop a desire to learn how.

Agreed. "High functioning" is DEFINITELY not the same as "able to converse with." There are children who are 'high functioning', but you would not be able to converse with them using psychological concepts you would an adult. And you'd be surprised at how some 'low functioning' clients are very eager to converse because they suffer from being ostracized from the community precisely because of this notion that b/c they have some serious issues, there is no way they can possibly hold a conversation or even want to. And how some high functioning clients have extremely poor insight as to their own actions that you will often find it's more frustrating to work with them than their 'lower functioning' peers.

Also, you cannot expect to get through clinical training or be a competitive applicant for a pre-doc internship if you only choose to see high functioning clients. I'm not sure such a preference for someone in your current career/academic stage is helpful.

 

[4Ever]

I am not surprised that my post made you defensive, but the points I made were fair.

QUOTE]

Perhaps the POINTS you made were fair, but do you think the WAY you made them was equally fair?

From my vantage point, you came across as rather venomous.

And, yes, I have seen the OP become defensive at times on this thread, but his or her responses to you have been straightforward, reasonable responses that in no way came across as defensive.

Did the OPs original post come across as rather elitist to me? Yes, it did. But, I dont think we need to attack him or her, especially since you have already surmised that the OP is young.

 

[Sendtrees]

"From my vantage point, you came across as rather venomous."

Really? I was working pretty hard not to be. Oh well--win some, lose some.

 

[ToTheLighthouse]

I am not surprised that my post made you defensive, but the points I made were fair.

Well when you start off with "you sound very young" and the only advice you are able to offer is "get a job", It's difficult for me to read your posts in a non-condescending way.

I feel like you've got an idea in your head about what kind of person I am, you're taking that generalization, and reading into all my posts as if they were coming from "that kind of person".

"Young" for instance. In beginning your post by labeling me as young, you're already placing me at a level below you in your mind.
That is the definition of condescension, and it impedes you from addressing me as a fellow human, just like you, and sets me into this category that is somehow opposed to you.
I don't like the way that feels, to be categorized and made alien by another. And I feel like it gets in the way of you being able to truly help me. And I want to be helped by you. I'm sure you have very valuable insight and experience, and I would love to be able to share in it with you.
But, in your last posts, I feel a wall: the kind of person you are vs. the kind of person I am, you against me. I'd like it to be more like, we're both people, you with me, me with you.

Your points are well taken.
I still think it's no mistake to be considering my future goals and the education that might go along with them, very few would contest that.

I just found a big list of all the research opportunities at my school, so I'll soon be delving into that information.

When I wrote that money isn't an issue, this isn't to say that I'm fine with wasting money. In that context, it only meant that I was not worried about going into massive debt should I attend an unfunded PsyD program.

In my mind, Jon Snow has made a good case for the PhD path, and that's what I'm looking into currently.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Many people considering a career in psychology don't really have an accurate picture of the general psychiatric population. The popular perception seems to be either the "soccer mom" who can afford to be a cash pay patient in someone's private practice, or the chronic and pervasive patient who regularly spends time in a psychiatric hospital for acute stabilization. The truth lies somewhere in between those...in most cases.

There are some psychologists who have a full-time private practice and can cherry-pick "high functioning" patients, though I'd consider them in the vast minority because your typical patient is just trying to get by and won't be functioning that well. "High functioning" patients simply have different challenges than the lower functioning patients.

I think some young clinicians feel "safer" with higher functioning people because they are not good at relating to people who are very different than themselves. Sometimes clinicians hide behind the intellectual side of clinical work (the jargon), as they are afraid to get down into the real work.

I spend most of my days working with a pretty diverse population, with many people who have some significant impairments, though I find it so much more rewarding because not only do they appreciate the work, but it provides new/different challenges to me as a clinician. Obvioulsy it will be different for each clinician, but don't get caught up on the stereotype Woody Allen type of session, as those are rarely reality.

*edit*

I'd also like to add that there is something to be said for insight. Some of the most insightful people I have worked with never graduated high school and had a host of problems that made daily life a struggle, but they worked hard and they cared about their treatment.

 

[Aura5]

Why is ToTheLighthouses' preference to work with higher-functioning clients being viewed in a negative light here? I've seen people voice a desire to work with the "profoundly" mental ill, or the 'seriously disturbed' etc. which to me means the more chronically psychotic or schizophrenic (lower functioning). He's just swinging to the other side of the spectrum of the kind of patients he'd want to treat once he's said and done with school. Maybe his(her?) mind will change eventually but right now, we are supposed to have interest areas/preferences/goals all that to find a good match, etc. so that's what I see him/her as doing.


Edit: Therapist4Change I just read your post after putting up mine. I like the point you made that, at the time of people getting therapy they are barely functioning anyway, just trying to get by which is what brought them to that point. What do you find clientele is like most of the time? I mean with me, I'm not looking for soccer moms but I guess fitting the stereotype of what you're saying, I might prefer higher-functioning that have deep rooted emotional/psychological problems but are still able to tell reality from non-reality, for the most part. (If that makes sense?) And I mean real physical reality, not as much if they're perceiving others' attitudes incorrectly etc. But not I haven't worked in the field so I could be off anyway.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Why is ToTheLighthouses' preference to work with higher-functioning clients being viewed in a negative light here?

Some people may view it as a bit naive, though I have worked with "higher functioning" patients, and it is no cake walk. Some of my darkest cases came from professionals/white collar people who were incredibly intelligent. Mental illness does not descriminate based on intelligence, though many times mental illness can be so impactfult early on that the person cannot get out from underneath it.

Hmm..gotta run, I'll answer the other part later.

 

[Aura5]

Some people may view it as a bit naive, though I have worked with "higher functioning" patients, and it is no cake walk. Some of my darkest cases came from professionals/white collar people who were incredibly intelligent. Mental illness does not descriminate based on intelligence, though many times mental illness can be so impactfult early on that the person cannot get out from underneath it.

Hmm..gotta run, I'll answer the other part later.

Ha, I agree that some of the darker minds might be the ones that appear more "functioning" on the outside, but that is what I'm interested in! Than, again, the disorganized ones that seem "gone" as far as reality. Although of course my mind might change if/when I actually begin working with patients. Anyway look forward to the rest of your post!

oh and I also wanted to add...to me high-functioning does not go hand in hand with white collar versus blue collar...etc. I just mean those that can function day to day seemingly more 'normally' than ones with total break from reality. Doesn't matter which collar or how high of IQ (though above what is considered mental ******ation). Just to clarify for myself, don't know for ToTheLighthouse.

 

[Jezebel09]

to me high-functioning does not go hand in hand with white collar versus blue collar...etc. I just mean those that can function day to day seemingly more 'normally' than ones with total break from reality. Doesn't matter which collar or how high of IQ .

Agreed. To me high-functioning is about the ability to function on a daily basis, which doesn't necessarily go hand in hand with job title or IQ (aside from the exceptions you mentioned).

 

[Aura5]

Agreed. To me high-functioning is about the ability to function on a daily basis, which doesn't necessarily go hand in hand with job title or IQ (aside from the exceptions you mentioned).

Thanks...and I'm sure T4C knows that too, was using the white collar as an example...but just wanted to clarify that I don't tie high-fxn with high intelligence, just the ability to function fairly successfully. Again most people seek/get help when areas of their lives are failing/faltering...but I mean functioning as in can pour a cup of water for themselves, can drive (if have license), can get from point A to B on a normal basis (again may be an exception if they had a momentary dissociative episode which lead to hospitalization)... that kind of thing. But an ordinary basis, can function independently.

And another point to add, some of those who end up 'low functioning' began as highly intelligent, high IQs etc. before something like severe schizophrenia struck or manifested prominently. So yeah...it's about the ability to function.