Nappp

[PsychEval]

---

Members don't see this ad.

As we have discussed before, there are several frustrating aspects to the APA. I was looking at this web site today, and I thought the National Alliance of Professional Psychology Providers looks impressive. What do others think?

http://nappp.org/

 

[Psyclops]

Although in theory such a body might work well, I'm not certain they are doing a great job. I read their paper to the BEA about no longer allowing CE credits to count toward psychopharm proficiency training. Now, not knowing much about this, it seems to me that proficency in pcyhopharm would be difficult to attain by solely completing some CE credits. The BEA wanted practitioners to go to an higher education institution. They seeemd to be complaining that they shouldn't have to do so much work. I'm not sure that advcacy like that will help us very much.

 

[Psyclops]

This little rant was intresting though: http://nappp.org/apa.pdf

 

[PsychEval]

True, but it’s a new organization. I saw that two former APA presidents are on their board. I like it that they seem to be a no bureaucracy, no preoccupation with political correctness, action oriented, practice and scope of practice driven. Interestingly, Ivory Tower types are not allowed in for membership.

There has been a great deal of frustration expressed toward APA from division 42 (independent practice) and division 55 (psychopharm) members. I have read with interest how many seasoned psychologists are disgusted with APA and other psychologists who seem to be negavistic, professionally self defeating, and overly focused on shooting ourselves in the foot as a group.

On the division 55 list serve, one person appropriately wrote:

"if you can count on nothing else you can count on cannibalism. Perhaps this should be engraved on our diplomas.”

 

[Psyclops]

Not in my opinion.

These guys seem anti-academic and don't back up their assertions well. I can think of several psychology related news articles just within the past few months. How can they be anti-ivory tower and then complain that psychiatry garners more headlines? That's stupid.

The grammar is also poor in this rant. For a president/board member, that's not excusable.

This doesn't appear to be a professionally run or viable organization.

Like it or not, our academics should drive psychology just as academics drive medicine.

I agree that academics should drive the field. And, I noticed the problem with the grammar as well. Even worse, there is poor grammar on thier mission statement (http://nappp.org/NAPPP.pdf). Overall, it looks "kinda shady" to use the parlance of my generation.

Regarding the research he is ranting agains, I had the same thought he did. I think that the IED isn't very compelling (or alarming), and I think that the biological explaniation there is lending validation to what I see as immature and controllable behavior. Just another example of the double edged sword of correlations.

 

[Psyclops]

Could you direct me to sofe of the personality trait literature on this topic? Thanks in advance.