Holland codes in psych careers

[indoubt]

Does this make sense to you?

I read somewhere--you can just google these--that clinical psych is apparently SIA, psychiatry ISA, school and educational psych is IES not to mention quantitative psych, experimental psych is IRS, and finally psychotherapy is also ISA.

I can see psychiatry being more "investigative" than "social" as opposed to clinical psych which would be the other way around. But is an educational psychologist more "enterprising" than the clinical one? I see I/O as definitely being like that but as far as teaching is concerned, clinical is also related to teaching patients in a way albeit from a less authoritarian stance. And why the heck is the psychotherapist is like the psychiatrist--and not clinical psychologist--both being ISA?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[erg923]

I have no idea what any of those acronyms mean or how they are relevant to, or impact my edcuation/training/career. Perhaps you should explain that...

 

[stigmata]

I agree? what language is this?

 

[indoubt]

I have no idea what any of those acronyms mean or how they are relevant to, or impact my edcuation/training/career. Perhaps you should explain that...

Okay, apparently you don't know google, so here:

http://www.google.com/

You type in "holland codes," and just a reminder, that was in the title of the post, which is that thing on top. You may then click on one of the millions of websites that explain it.

Seriously though, you have never heard of it? If you ever took first year counseling psych courses or ever went for career counseling, there is a very high chance that you know what that is. Where do you go to school?!

In case you do know about Holland codes and this is your way of insinuating something about the reliability/validity of the Holland personality types--which is reasonable enough--just come out and say it and don't get all cute about it.

Anyhow, these are the six personality types (from wiki):

• Realistic - practical, physical, hands-on, tool-oriented
• Investigative - analytical, intellectual, scientific, explorative
• Artistic - creative, original, independent, chaotic
• Social - cooperative, supporting, helping, healing/nurturing
• Enterprising - competitive environments, leadership, persuading
• Conventional - detail-oriented, organizing, clerical

So looking at the first letters of the above, IAS would indicate that you are first and foremost, the investigative type, then artistic, then social, and that you score very low on the other ones. The fact that an educational psychologist is labeled an IES indicates that such person is more likely to have leadership abilities than say a psychiatrist or psychologist.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Well...I just learned something new today. I'm admittedly not a counseling psychologist (clinical neuropsychologist, yay Lezak et al.), but interesting none the less.

 

[stigmata]

Okay...?, can you explain the relevance? Are these codes used for admissions, just descriptors?😕

 

[lookitssara]

In career counseling, one can complete a measurement that results in ordering someone's Holland personality types. The top three form your "type" like SIA, IES, RSC, whatever.

You can then look up your three letter code and see what career matches with it. This is one way of helping someone determine what career they may be interested in based on their personality.

The OP (who is rude btw....it is not anyone on here's job to google something just to help you out, especially when it's not that important of a question. Also, this is counseling and CACREP mandated course, and most people here are clinical. Most went to amazing schools.), doesn't agree with the codes given to the various mental health. He/she was hoping to start a discussion on why certain personality traits were tied to certain professions and not to others.

In regards to psychotherapist/psychiatrist....think about when these codes were formulated. My guess is that at that time, psychotherapy was tied to psychiatry and psychodynamics and thus the term"psychotherapy" which to some, means psychodynamic therapy.

Also, enterprising is not meant to tie with teaching. School/educational is more enterprising, I believe, because there is more advocacy and consulting presumed within them.

 

[stigmata]

Got it! Thanks! Funny up until your post I was still thinking this had to do with something in Holland??

 

[indoubt]

The OP (who is rude btw....it is not anyone on here's job to google something just to help you out, especially when it's not that important of a question. Also, this is counseling and CACREP mandated course, and most people here are clinical. Most went to amazing schools.)

I was not being rude, I'm simply shocked that many haven't heard of it or do not simply bother looking it up. This was not some esoteric piece of knowledge that would require time-consuming explanation on my part. I learned about it in high school. Don't people go for career counseling these days? In any case, it doesn't really matter because it really does seem that many here haven't heard of it.

p.s. googling things is really not that bad. On another forum, when I asked if Freud was potentially gay, I was asked to google it.

 

[lookitssara]

Of course. The person with the query is almost always expected to search for the answer via google'ing first. What's not as appropriate is asking your question, then expecting the kind folks who answer to google something so they are better able to answer you.

 

[erg923]

Psychology, personality psychology in particular, is full of models, indicators, circumplexes, etc. Generally, they are of little clinical utility for anything. Timothy Leary (the LSD guru) had a circumplex that was kinda neat though, back in the 50s when he was still a convential academic, based on MMPI code types I think. However, generally, I shudder to think that anyone can or should be classified into such discreet boxes, as if personality (whatever that is) has mutually exclusive traits and behaviors. I think this model and the debate you're bringing up amounts to little more than academic masturbation...

Perhaps some career counselors and "life coaches" find this method/model useful, however that not really the type of work I (or most of us here) do.

 

[indoubt]

Psychology, personality psychology in particular, is full of models, indicators, circumplexes, etc. Generally, they are of little clinical utility for anything. Timothy Leary (the LSD guru) had a circumplex that was kinda neat though, back in the 50s when he was still a convential academic, based on MMPI code types I think. However, generally, I shudder to think that anyone can or should be classified into such discreet boxes, as if personality (whatever that is) has mutually exclusive traits and behaviors. I think this model and the debate you're bringing up amounts to little more than academic masturbation...

Perhaps some career counselors and "life coaches" find this method/model useful, however that not really the type of work I (or most of us here) do.

So was I right that you had heard of the model but by posting "I have no idea what any of those acronyms mean or how they are relevant to, or impact my edcuation/training/career," you were insinuating that the model is jejune and not worthy of your consideration?

 

[erg923]

Nope. I made that conclusion after reading about it just now. 🙂

 

[stigmata]

Psychology, personality psychology in particular, is full of models, indicators, circumplexes, etc. Generally, they are of little clinical utility for anything. Timothy Leary (the LSD guru) had a circumplex that was kinda neat though, back in the 50s when he was still a convential academic, based on MMPI code types I think. However, generally, I shudder to think that anyone can or should be classified into such discreet boxes, as if personality (whatever that is) has mutually exclusive traits and behaviors. I think this model and the debate you're bringing up amounts to little more than academic masturbation...

Perhaps some career counselors and "life coaches" find this method/model useful, however that not really the type of work I (or most of us here) do.

Haha....totally agree. Please refer to my posts about the utility of measuring the valid construct of "goofyness".

 

[indoubt]

It is anticipated that lots of personality psych models are going to fall short of expectation merely because we're talking about a more complex and elusive field of study than behaviorism. Of course that's no reason not to study it...and no reason to act all snobby about the findings...erg, I'm looking at you kid, the one recording how many times your little rats are are pressing levers in a cage.😉

 

[erg923]

I'm "snobby" about its validity and its ability to be useful in the kind of work that I do, yes.

One of the purposes of a ph.d (in any field) is to be able to look at the evidence for a proposed, model, theory, or intervention and form an opinion about its validity or usefulness in your work based on the scientific/empirical evidence. I don't think calling something bunk is snobbery. When the "emperor had no clothes," some would say that its actually our scientific duty to blow the whistle. Now, I agree that there are lots of examples of things that are not valid that actually can be clinically useful...I'm just not convinced this is one of them.

PS: I am not a behaviorist.

 

[IOPsych]

I'm "snobby" about its validity and its ability to be useful in the kind of work that I do, yes.

One of the purposes of a ph.d (in any field) is to be able to look at the evidence for a proposed, model, theory, or intervention and form an opinion about its validity or usefulness in your work based on the scientific/empirical evidence. I don't think calling something bunk is snobbery. When the "emperor had no clothes," some would say that its actually our scientific duty to blow the whistle. Now, I agree that there are lots of examples of things that are not valid that actually can be clinically useful...I'm just not convinced this is one of them.

PS: I am not a behaviorist.

There has been a lot of research on Holland's code and choice of college majors. I think it has some validity especially when looking at what interests individuals. They have been able to predict college majors based upon an individual's Holland code and this has been replicated in multiple studies. Look into Ackerman's (1996,1997) PPIK theory. In its most basic form it uses Holland's idea and expands upon it theorizing that personality interacts with intelligence to drive people's interests. If this were not true all people of a given intelligence would pursue the same interests/profession. It is actually a very interesting theory that is definitely in need of further research.

I am just trying to say that although it may not be useful in the clinical realm, it does predict interests, in both predictive and concurrent designs.

 

[Existenz]

I thought Holland Code was Dan Brown's next book..