D
deleted343839
"cisgender?" is this an actual thing, or something that has been made up in the past couple years?
It's not that new. Some people used to use the term "natal male" or "natal female" but that fell out of favor.
"cisgender?" is this an actual thing, or something that has been made up in the past couple years?
Sorry. Her name is Melissa Click.
Yes, I decided that was unduly harsh and not civil 🙂
This is a textbook example of what @Jon Snow is talking about and something that has become increasingly clear and disgusting to me. Thought policing, right? Don't believe in some of the lock-step liberal views/opinions, you must be flawed/racist/psychological ignorant, etc. The advantages of "diversity" only applies to skin color, right? You really want a world where we use psychology/psychiatry in this way?
Barring dissenting views of the world from an entire profession. Awesome idea. Very "progressive."
Have you been to an undergrad campus lately?
"cisgender?" is this an actual thing, or something that has been made up in the past couple years?
Exactly. Comes off as being anti freedom. It's shockingly obtuse.
For me, this thread just highlights how important it is to explicitly emphasize multicultural competence in training.... an unprofessional rant... it would not benefit applicants to express how much they love/hate Trump, eschew/endorse political correctness, etc. at length, in the context of their personal statement)
Is that population not valuable enough to want to serve? Does that not count as diversity? It should because no one else wants to work here.
I'm not sure of the subtext here, but rural populations absolutely fit with many definitions of "diversity" and are an important emerging focus of disparities research. Long overdue.
Oh please, I was clearly responding outrageously to an outrageous hypothetical. But sure, please say more about what else is increasingly clear and disgusting to you. While my comment was meant to be facetious, let's not pretend there aren't values that the profession tries to uphold, and these values often intersect with politics. FYI, I do not believe that the advantages of "diversity" only applies to skin color nor do I believe not endorsing liberal views makes you flawed/racist/psychological ignorant--nice try though. Research does indicate that political conservatism is characterized by resistance to change and acceptance of inequality. I might benefit you to consider what may be threatening about the changes you are noticing in the field in the discourse around social issues. Also, no one is policing your thoughts, you can think whatever you want but people get to disagree with you.
I honestly don't know how I would have answered such a question as an undergrad, it probably would have been terribly generic and unimpressive. I come from rural Iowa, all of the schools I attended and jobs I worked at prior to graduate school were between 95% and 100% white. I mostly only associated with people who were as much like me as possible because I had a fair bit of interpersonal insecurity and worried that people from different political/financial/etc. backgrounds wouldn't like me. Diversity honestly played a tremendously minimal part in my life and I don't know that I did hold a tremendous amount of value for it at that time. Would that have been considered an acceptable answer? Does this mean I wouldn't be an effective and/or ethical psychologist? My long-term career goal (which I accomplished) was to return to rural Iowa and practice here, serving the previously mentioned very homogenous community I grew up in, not because I am a racist butthole but because mental health here is god awful and I know how hard it is to grow up here without help. Is that population not valuable enough to want to serve? Does that not count as diversity? It should because no one else wants to work here. My county has 220k people and 22 licensed psychologists and I happen to know that at least 6 of them only practice part time.
To add to what you are saying, most of our patients are marginalized and stigmatized for having a mental illness regardless of ethnicity or gender and mental illness crosses all of those lines anyway. I worked in a private facility that only the very wealthy could afford and when their kids lives were on the line, the only difference that money made was the level of service they could afford to provide and at times that wasn't enough. By the way, we had a surprisingly diverse population because wealth is not just contained in white European heterosexual families.Thank you for your thoughtful response. I really do appreciate it. The truth is, I have a big problem with a lot of what you are saying.
You are using terms like "contributions to diversity" and "valuing diversity" somewhat interchangeably with terms like "multicultural competency." I've seen these two concepts frequently equated and I find it problematic. It has felt to me like psychologists are expected to have a particular passion for working with individuals from historically disadvantaged backgrounds, most significantly those of nonwhite races and to a lesser extent members of the LGTBQ community that goes above and beyond their passion for working with clients in general, or their passion for working with other groups who are particularly important to them for whatever reason. I agree with your assertion that multicultural competency is tremendously important no matter where one lives and/or practices, but I do not agree that one's ability to acquire multiculrual competency is dependent on their agreement with your personal and/or political perspectives on diversity, whiteness, and privilege. Upon what are you basing your assertion that recognizing and confronting my privilege would be beneficial to my training? On what basis would someone's ability to answer this question in a manner you find satisfactory on an essay be a valid reason to allow or deny their admission into a training program? These are your personal, political opinions. They also bleed through a bit in the sample answers that you give, that the inverse of someone who acknowledges and accepts the concept of privilege is someone who is so culturally dense that they would say something like "I am White, so I have no culture." It basically reads like you believe that people who do not share your personal perspectives on this topic are ignorant or uninformed.
How would you react if I were to ask your opinion on having students write an essay about their faith? (Assuming this is not a private, religious institution). What if I told you that I would consider an "encouraged response" to this question would be a statement about the role of the Lord in the individual's life, because I believe individuals who align with biblical Christian values are more likely to be effective clinicians? What if I told you someone could be "penalized" for expressing a lack of understand about the Lord's role in their life?
To add to what you are saying, most of our patients are marginalized and stigmatized for having a mental illness regardless of ethnicity or gender and mental illness crosses all of those lines anyway. I worked in a private facility that only the very wealthy could afford and when their kids lives were on the line, the only difference that money made was the level of service they could afford to provide and at times that wasn't enough. By the way, we had a surprisingly diverse population because wealth is not just contained in white European heterosexual families.
I have also worked with patients from intergenerational poverty which also crosses all those lines as well.
Basically, the political lines that are often drawn around these issues are not that helpful or useful in the real world of clinical practice, but I would never say that in a multicultural statement for fear of being branded racist or even worse...a Trump supporter. 😱
I try to stay very much in the middle of these political issues and see both sides of the argument, but that usually leads me to being accused by each side of being complicit in the evil that the other side is perpetrating.
Again, a great thread on an important topic. For folks who might wonder where some of the basis for psychologists' cultural competency comes from, I suggest starting with our ethics code, particularly Principle E: Respect for People's Rights and Dignity. Additionally, APA's Guidelines on Multicultural Education, Training, Research, Practice, and Organizational Change provides answers to some of these questions.
http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/
http://www.apa.org/pi/oema/resources/policy/multicultural-guidelines.aspx
I spent a lot of time in my childhood and adolescence in the Middle East and Europe. I like American culture and have seen first hand how quickly our racial, ethnic, regional, differences evaporate when we are expatriates. I had way more in common with American expats of any stripe than I did with non-English speaking people who often lived in mud huts wore funny pajamas and pooped in the street. I well remember the cholera outbreak as the people would use water from the gutters to wash their dishes. Europe, of course, was not quite so different from America, but there were still things that we preferred about America and often the longer we stayed, the more we wanted to "go back home". I came back to the US to a university that prided itself on its diversity and I saw divisiveness and artificial barriers between groups of Americans that shocked me. What was especially shocking was that none of the people seemed to notice and especially the professors would tout how integrated it was. I was like the kid saying the emperor has no clothes. I don't know exactly when or how it became a sin to be an American, but this self-denigration of our own culture and elevation of other cultures and emphasis on differences has apparently become part of our culture especially in the coastal metropolitan areas.Btw. If a "monoculture" is privilege, isn't that a strong rebuke of multi-culturalism? Wouldn't it then be logical to strive for a monoculture? I would argue the answer to the latter is yes, to an extent. That's the idea of the melting pot concept. And, it's also consistent with what we know about in group and out group psychology. The current slicing version of multiculturalism is ill considered. Basically, this particular variant of progressive ideology is not very bright. But, we should recognize that there are a lot of these people rolling around psychology and they have power. When you run in to a question like the op, they want to know that you adhere to their religion. Thus, your goal is to make them think that because otherwise, as they state, they won't allow you in their program.
Exactly so. It's philosophically little different from religion and asking about religion is a perfectly reasonable parallel. disclosure: I am an atheist, and I am not arguing "if you get to promote your religion, I should get to promote mine. . ." I'm arguing neither is appropriate.
I spent a lot of time in my childhood and adolescence in the Middle East and Europe. I like American culture and have seen first hand how quickly our racial, ethnic, regional, differences evaporate when we are expatriates. I had way more in common with American expats of any stripe than I did with non-English speaking people who often lived in mud huts wore funny pajamas and pooped in the street. I well remember the cholera outbreak as the people would use water from the gutters to wash their dishes. Europe, of course, was not quite so different from America, but there were still things that we preferred about America and often the longer we stayed, the more we wanted to "go back home". I came back to the US to a university that prided itself on its diversity and I saw divisiveness and artificial barriers between groups of Americans that shocked me. What was especially shocking was that none of the people seemed to notice and especially the professors would tout how integrated it was. I was like the kid saying the emperor has no clothes. I don't know exactly when or how it became a sin to be an American, but this self-denigration of our own culture and elevation of other cultures and emphasis on differences has apparently become part of our culture especially in the coastal metropolitan areas.
In my opinion, one of the strengths of this country has been the anti-intellectual/anti-institutional aspects of our culture. Our heroes have typically tended to be the self-educated or street savvy or the solo person against the establishment. They can even be scientists and quite smart, but they are bucking the tide. I have worked with the blue collar folks side by side for much of my life and made a living by the sweat of my brow. There is often a simple wisdom there. Please don't confuse that with the recent elevation of vapid and ignorant celebrities in reality tv shows or the caricatures of the obese Walmart crowd. I would even argue that this dynamic might be a result of the emphasis on intellectualism in our culture as opposed to hard work and technical abilities and politically correct liberal arts studies as opppsed to real science being taught in the bastions of intellectualism known as universities.Well, the bumbling and simple part is a self-inflicted wound. We've been going down a path of anti-intellectualism for some time now and openly eschew science and data at a national level more than most industrialized nations. We made that bed, now we get to sleep in it.
Probably not. Are you referring to the anti-intellectual wings of the Republican party such as the fundamentalist christians and impoverished ill-educated Trump voters?Umm, I'm not sure that we're talking about the same anti-intellectualism.
Probably not. Are you referring to the anti-intellectual wings of the Republican party such as the fundamentalist christians and impoverished ill-educated Trump voters?
Agree. Though I'm not sure the rest of the world has much of a leg to stand on comparing themselves to us.
Scientific output in the US is massive.
The 60's and 70's. Watch it with the age comments buddy.Were you a kid in the 50's? Even so, anti-intellectualism was still alive and well in that time. Aside from that, being proud is one thing, as long as you actually have something to be proud about. In my mind, those who wholeheartedly believe in american exceptionalism are the same as the the kids getting participation trophies. "You're great just because!"
I kind of guessed that, not millenials aren't quite old enough to be docs yet. I'm actually between the boomers and the X, myself.I'm in that gray area in between X and the millennials. Also, American exceptionalism as a concept goes back to the 19th century.
I'm in that gray area in between X and the millennials.
We are called "The My So-Called Life Generation."
*stepping back out now*
Oh, Jordan C...you hurt so good!
We are called "The My So-Called Life Generation."
*stepping back out now*