PhD/PsyD Suggested that I work in forensics (Psy D student)

[Mouse77]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I was told by a psychologist who graduated my program that my personality is more suited for working with criminals, but my passion is in helping people suffering from SMI which is from my own experience with it, as it is rampant in the household I am from. I am rather analytical and mechanical, and the curative factors of empathy, understanding, listening, basically the therapeutic alliance, will be a great challenge for me in the later years of practicum. I am a die-hard academic, I chose the scholar-practitioner model (Vail) because I am experienced in research in psychotherapy, as my honors thesis was accepted in that area, and I am soon to be working on getting it published, and I had the highest GPA in my department upon graduation from undergrad...so I was on equal footing for research or practice, and after seeing so much politics in research, and enjoying scholarship more, I said practice. I was offered a Ph.D. and a Psy D, also an MS in clinical rehabilitation counseling. I chose Psy D.

What I am known for is soaking up books and articles like a sponge, basically being a voracious reader, but I am also creative and have strong critical thinking skills....maybe too strong, stronger than my feelings and empathy are. I was well-trained in research, and my habit of thinking critically is my greatest strength (I mean I can butcher articles and come up with research questions easily), yet it is all I know as of now. I was told by a professor in undergrad that my personality will change in graduate school, which is odd because I always read that personality is relatively stable, and I am at a serious fork in the road.

I don't know whether my empathy for people suffering SMI or my intense critical thinking habits should be the basis for a career. I was planning on working in a mental hospital, specifically with schizophrenia patients, but I may be of better service dealing with dark pathology. My research has been on a stigma intervention, which is reflective of my narrow empathy, which is almost limited to people with MI, and I just sort of don't know where to go from here. I am capable and motivated, but I do not know what I should be setting my sights on for a career.

Advice from forensic psychologists and SMI specialists is most welcome- and thank you.

As a side note, I suffer from paranoid schizophrenia, but my case is well-controlled with treatment and insight. I currently am a leader in an online support group for schizophrenia patients, and I have something that most others do not have: the right to say "I understand." when told the horrors of psychosis. That is where my empathy comes from.

The colder, calculating, critical side comes from being a former Krav Maga fighter. Krav Maga is a science-based hand-to-hand combat system. It was prep for the military, but then I came down with a psychotic break and retired.

 

[erg923]

I read your post twice but cant figure out what the question is.

 

[PsyDr]

A few thoughts:

forensics is a game where one side is trying to discredit the other side. Some play "clean", but many play dirty. Most have a sliding scale. Personal stuff like a psychotic episode precluding you from military service will be discovered and brought up to discredit you. Maybe not early in your career, but the clock would be ticking.

Grad school is a chance to be exposed to different fields of practice so that you can refine your choices. Every big name I know did not start out wanting to be where they are. Don't try to decide it before you tried it. I and several other of the older posters have indicated we did not start grad school with our current track.

Like 95% of forensics is not some profiler "dark pathology" stuff. The incredible majority of crimes have pretty boring explanations. Even hare will tell you that.

I wouldn't brag too much about being able to critique articles. It's easier to destroy than create. Theres a reason the axiom isn't "critique the work of others or perish". Getting irb approval, obtaining funding, and collecting data from human subjects is hundreds of times harder than critiquing something. If you progress as a professional, you'll notice a difference in respect between the guys who write 100s of articles and the person who only critiques.

Empathy does not mean what you are implying.

In a lot of ways you are where you should be, but you're about to step into a new world where everyone is smart and accomplished. It would be wise to be humble and open to learning about career paths once you're there.

 

[Mouse77]

A few thoughts:

forensics is a game where one side is trying to discredit the other side. Some play "clean", but many play dirty. Most have a sliding scale. Personal stuff like a psychotic episode precluding you from military service will be discovered and brought up to discredit you. Maybe not early in your career, but the clock would be ticking.

Grad school is a chance to be exposed to different fields of practice so that you can refine your choices. Every big name I know did not start out wanting to be where they are. Don't try to decide it before you tried it. I and several other of the older posters have indicated we did not start grad school with our current track.

Like 95% of forensics is not some profiler "dark pathology" stuff. The incredible majority of crimes have pretty boring explanations. Even hare will tell you that.

I wouldn't brag too much about being able to critique articles. It's easier to destroy than create. Theres a reason the axiom isn't "critique the work of others or perish". Getting irb approval, obtaining funding, and collecting data from human subjects is hundreds of times harder than critiquing something. If you progress as a professional, you'll notice a difference in respect between the guys who write 100s of articles and the person who only critiques.

Empathy does not mean what you are implying.

In a lot of ways you are where you should be, but you're about to step into a new world where everyone is smart and accomplished. It would be wise to be humble and open to learning about career paths once you're there.

I do see the point that being psyched out is a big deal- that is very salient...

Well, I learned when I was in undergrad that forensics is not actually about profiling but more about applying psych principles to legal issues- I heard that most cases are weird, like a man without any supposed pathology having records of lots of treatment for baldness when he was never going bald being the work of the shrink towards saying "oh no he does have mental illness." You know, not like picking killer brains all day. I just know that it is more like a critical thinking game than it is application of empathy. I understand empathy to be cognitive, or understanding of the situation (putting yourself in their shoes) and there to be a second component, that is, affective empathy, or feeling the emotions they felt. I am more inclined to understand than to feel. However, I fully empathize with people suffering from psychosis. And yes, I know it is required to be able to critique works the further one goes in education, I just wanted to point out that I am in fact better at picking things apart and putting them back together than generating ideas. IRB approval and dealing with participants was in indeed a pain in the butt when I did my thesis, part of why I chose the Psy D was because after getting a taste of generating science, I didn't want to do it for the rest of my life- I figured I was better suited to consume literature, which includes sorting out garbage. "Publish or perish" sounded like being damned to me.

I originally got into psych because I wanted to help people who weren't as fortunate to recover as well from schizophrenia, and now I see that perhaps I would be better going with finding flaws for a career than helping people in pain. It is sort of sad to me, but I just notice that I am better at finding flaws and gaps in literature and things like that than everything else I have done so far. I have been told that my relatively flat affect would be a big problem in establishing the curative factors of psychotherapy, the whole having the patient understand they are being understood and instilling hope and empowerment. I mean I am pretty dry and analytical in person. I do have a sense of humor, but I would say that unless I am around severely mentally ill people, I just wouldn't understand- I have never really understood normal, my prodromal phase started at age 11 with some nasty delusions, and I became full-blown at 18. Normal was so long ago that I have trouble remembering it.

What I would like to know is if forensics is 1. possible given by background, and 2. truly less of a matter of clicking with people.
I would also like to know whether it is possible to have a career with SMI patients for my entire career- basically, is it possible to work inpatient long-term? (I have heard about burnout...and am aware that I am susceptible to it)

thanks

 

[deleted343839]

I just wanted to point out that I am in fact better at picking things apart and putting them back together than generating ideas.

It is sort of sad to me, but I just notice that I am better at finding flaws and gaps in literature and things like that than everything else I have done so far.

Welcome to science! This is true of most everyone. As PSYDR said, it's easier to destroy than create. For every new theory or paradigm that comes along, there are thousands of papers testing, critiquing, comparing, elaborating but adding incrementally very little (if anything) to fundamental knowledge.

I would say that unless I am around severely mentally ill people, I just wouldn't understand

I have something that most others do not have: the right to say "I understand." when told the horrors of psychosis. That is where my empathy comes from.

I would also like to know whether it is possible to have a career with SMI patients for my entire career- basically, is it possible to work inpatient long-term?

Yes, it is definitely possible to have a career focused on inpatient services, though I would caution against the risks of overidentifying with the people you are trying to help and assuming a fixed mindset about your ability to help a broader range of folks (including forensic populations). Though I'm sure you bring valuable insight to the table, shared experiences (if and when they are shared - SMI is a big tent) are not a sufficient foundation for a therapeutic relationship.

 

[G Costanza]

In my brief time working forensics, I found a lot of cases to be fairly straightforward with the occasional competence eval that was usually fun. I'm no expert...but building rapport with people was usually really helpful in connecting the assessment interview with testing results. A lot of court ordered clients are really suspicious or reluctant to talk until they get comfortable. That could be challenging if your self-description is accurate. But again, I only did that work for about a year and it was mostly evaluating parents for custody of their children.

 

[dissonance_]

.

 

[BuckeyeLove]

spent three days last week reviewing and summarizing 18 years of psychiatric records. #sexyjob #not In response to the OP, one time an attorney tried, but was unable to access my fb page, but still somehow found a way to see my profile picture (even though i thought i had all my stuff locked up tight). He subsequently attempted to use my profile pic, which had recently been adorned with a homecoming filter for a school/football team i may happen to like's symbol, which just so happens to look similar to a certain schedule 1 substance leaf, and then tried to spin it off and say that i was a "party boy." None of this ad hominem BS had anything to do with my evaluation, the case, or my proffered opinions. the judge yelled at him and told him he should be embarrassed, but i could see other older judge's rolling with it.

 

[erg923]

All my "forensic" stuff is civil, not criminal, and someone once called me an "assclown."

 

[Mouse77]

Thank you all for the advice- this helps to clear the picture. Yeah, looks like if someone wanted to find dirt on me, they would, I am open and public about my schizophrenia, as my research is on public stigma, I am actually going ahead with my prof to get the thesis published as an article, as it was well-received at a conference and a research forum, won me an award actually. Part of the cutting edge of fighting stigma is being open and doing well for others to see. I have to live what I say in research in this case- I can't write about an intervention for stigma and then go hide my diagnosis and mental health history. That would make me dishonest, show zero loyalty to my own word and to the community of stigma researchers, just no.

I think what happened with this new psychologist I saw was the problem of a crappy snapshot of my personality. Two sessions have happened. Session one I was changing medications and not well. Session two, I had to matter-of-fact spit out a horrible life history so he could get a picture of what experiences I have had. I think, by my reasoning, that I may actually have better interpersonal skills than he thinks. I have done some mock sessions in school, and I was graded A and told that I was just slightly too matter-of-fact and focused on the presenting problem, I could have been a bit less intense in getting to the presenting problem.

But I also take another huge, I think deciding factor into consideration.

My personal statement said I want to work in a hospital setting with SMI patients. The interviews for admission went well enough to be admitted, with the matter of working in a hospital being discussed. I had letters of rec that must have not been too bad to be admitted to the program. These professors all supported the notion of me working as a therapist with SMI patients. They read pages and pages about me, saw my own word in my personal statement, saw me in person, saw my transcript, and then gave a green light. They had a bigger and better snapshot of me.

This new shrink saw garbage data and made a garbage conclusion.