Thoughts on the proposed Minnesota Guidelines for neuropsych training?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Members do not see this ad.
Ollie123 said:
Well, advocating to hospital staff about the need for interpreters is by definition advocacy🙂 I take your point though. I certainly won't claim to know the exact line that the authors draw on this. My definitions differ somewhat from yours and I'd posit at least some of that is advocacy. Either way, the need to do a better job operationalizing things is pretty much my point.

My default assumption would be that the individuals involved are professional/rationale/reasonable individuals and that advocacy within the context of a professional guideline would be intended as the forms of advocacy that would occur within typical professional contexts (e.g., examples above). Maybe I'm wrong. I literally don't know a single one of the organizers, much to my surprise.
Click to expand...
Advocating does mean advocating. I think you are talking about something different though and a different word like “ensuring” would work fine for how you are defining this.
 
I'm just glad that I'll finally have a set of guidelines that tell me I need to engage in self-care. I mean, what a relief. I never knew how important it was until the guidelines that tell me what it takes to be a neuropsychologist told me so. I'm just disappointed that they did not also tell me in which direction I was supposed to brush my teeth.
 
Ollie123 said:
... However I suspect even the folks against its inclusion here would be taking a very different stance if advocacy was more clearly operationalized as ensuring interpreter availability, taking precautions when relying on norms that may not be representative for a given individual, understanding the limits of assessment in non-native languages, acknowledging generalizability limitations in research products, etc...
Click to expand...
I see the DIE boogeyman everywhere, yet consider all those (and more) regularly!

jdawg2017 said:
... the HCG solicited no input whatsoever from neuropsych organizations outside of the delegates who attended the HCG, so this is an improvement.
Click to expand...
This would unironically be better. Have a handful of people come up with new guidelines, then put it to a Div40 vote. With so many people involved, things inevitably become watered down to appease the masses (with the end result lacking fangs and pleasing no one).

The real question though: can this board come up with better guidelines? 😏
 
WisNeuro said:
I'm just glad that I'll finally have a set of guidelines that tell me I need to engage in self-care. I mean, what a relief. I never knew how important it was until the guidelines that tell me what it takes to be a neuropsychologist told me so. I'm just disappointed that they did not also tell me in which direction I was supposed to brush my teeth.
Click to expand...
It's all about control. I'm sure that some org will put it out there that brushing diagonally is the only ethical approach.
 
Pragma said:
Advocating does mean advocating.
Click to expand...

Yeah, this kinda highlights the importance of operationalizing terms😉 I agree other terms could work equally well. Advocacy may mean different things in different contexts these days. I would still take "Advocating on behalf of patients in a professional context, particularly marginalized ones less able to advocate for themselves" as a narrow form of advocacy but to each their own. I'm certainly not saying "I'm right and you are wrong" - just that these are clearly fuzzy terms we should pin down.


The whole culture we have built around self-care downright pisses me off. I was part of a workgroup at my last job where this was discussed and I even made a joke during a meeting that I really hope that our self-care initiatives involve systemic changes versus a monthly email saying "President xyz recommends deep breathing to cope with your daily beatings." Sure enough, we got emails and coloring books in the breakroom or something like that. I'm obviously all for self-care but I think its just become an excuse to avoid systemic changes and push a societal problem onto individuals. Corporate/capitalist interests making it clear to workers that the reason they are unhappy about their 80 hour workweeks is because they don't spend 3 minutes coloring during their lunch break.
 
Ollie123 said:
Yeah, this kinda highlights the importance of operationalizing terms😉 I agree other terms could work equally well. Advocacy may mean different things in different contexts these days. I would still take "Advocating on behalf of patients in a professional context, particularly marginalized ones less able to advocate for themselves" as a narrow form of advocacy but to each their own. I'm certainly not saying "I'm right and you are wrong" - just that these are clearly fuzzy terms we should pin down.


The whole culture we have built around self-care downright pisses me off. I was part of a workgroup at my last job where this was discussed and I even made a joke during a meeting that I really hope that our self-care initiatives involve systemic changes versus a monthly email saying "President xyz recommends deep breathing to cope with your daily beatings." Sure enough, we got emails and coloring books in the breakroom or something like that. I'm obviously all for self-care but I think its just become an excuse to avoid systemic changes and push a societal problem onto individuals. Corporate/capitalist interests making it clear to workers that the reason they are unhappy about their 80 hour workweeks is because they don't spend 3 minutes coloring during their lunch break.
Click to expand...
If you read recent writings from neuropsychologists, you will see that advocacy is operationalized as things like social justice, social responsibility, transformative justice, etc.
 
On the one hand: I love seeing neuropsychologists infight. On the other: If y'all don't stand up to the cult of DEI, no other subfield has a chance, as neuropsychologist tend to be higher on the disagreeable dimension, and to see DEI penetrate this conference so deeply is scary.
 
borne_before said:
On the one hand: I love seeing neuropsychologists infight. On the other: If y'all don't stand up to the cult of DEI, no other subfield has a chance, as neuropsychologist tend to be higher on the disagreeable dimension, and to see DEI penetrate this conference so deeply is scary.
Click to expand...

The field is fairly bimodal, older folks and a lot of ECPs. ECPs are big into these things across the spectrum.
 
Ollie123 said:
Yeah, this kinda highlights the importance of operationalizing terms😉 I agree other terms could work equally well. Advocacy may mean different things in different contexts these days. I would still take "Advocating on behalf of patients in a professional context, particularly marginalized ones less able to advocate for themselves" as a narrow form of advocacy but to each their own. I'm certainly not saying "I'm right and you are wrong" - just that these are clearly fuzzy terms we should pin down.


The whole culture we have built around self-care downright pisses me off. I was part of a workgroup at my last job where this was discussed and I even made a joke during a meeting that I really hope that our self-care initiatives involve systemic changes versus a monthly email saying "President xyz recommends deep breathing to cope with your daily beatings." Sure enough, we got emails and coloring books in the breakroom or something like that. I'm obviously all for self-care but I think its just become an excuse to avoid systemic changes and push a societal problem onto individuals. Corporate/capitalist interests making it clear to workers that the reason they are unhappy about their 80 hour workweeks is because they don't spend 3 minutes coloring during their lunch break.
Click to expand...
It's not 'burnout'

It's moral injury, lol
 
borne_before said:
On the one hand: I love seeing neuropsychologists infight. On the other: If y'all don't stand up to the cult of DEI, no other subfield has a chance, as neuropsychologist tend to be higher on the disagreeable dimension, and to see DEI penetrate this conference so deeply is scary.
Click to expand...
I believe that the threat to the scientific integrity of the field is being severely underestimated, in general.

Time will tell. Let's all touch base again in 10 years.
 
Fan_of_Meehl said:
I believe that the threat to the scientific integrity of the field is being severely underestimated, in general.

Time will tell. Let's all touch base again in 10 years.
Click to expand...

I am very glad I am not just getting into the field.
 
WisNeuro said:
I am very glad I am not just getting into the field.
Click to expand...
I agree. And, just to be clear, I'm not saying I'm 'right' and the early career psychologists who will be fundamentally transforming the field in years to come are somehow 'wrong' in any absolutist sense. To a large degree, I think that we're often talking past one another.

When I say that science (as a process) and activism do not mix I simply cannot fathom that being an objectionable or controversial position if one understands the traditional approach to practicing science. Criticism of theories, debate, dissent, and doubt are the sine qua non of a scientific approach. Therefore, there can be NO sacred cows (or theories) in science that are above critique. But what I have observed, empirically, is that there very much ARE sacred cows/theories that are not to be questioned (or, at least, questioned at your own peril). 'Activism' is inherently a political activity with a clear 'agenda' of influencing the crowd in a particular direction on an issue...it is not an open-ended inquiry focused on asking critical questions and listening to the answers nature/data give us. Science is focused on the PROCESS of knowledge generation and question answering (WHATEVER those answers happen to be). By contrast, activism appears to be RESULTS or OUTCOME focused regardless of the process utilized to achieve those outcomes.

If you faithfully follow a scientific PROCESS you may or may not achieve the OUTCOME that you'd be trying to achieve via activism.
 
Last edited:
Fan_of_Meehl said:
I agree. And, just to be clear, I'm not saying I'm 'right' and the early career psychologists who will be fundamentally transforming the field in years to come are somehow 'wrong' in any absolutist sense. To a large degree, I think that we're often talking past one another.

When I say that science (as a process) and activism do not mix I simply cannot fathom that being an objectionable or controversial position if one understands the traditional approach to practicing science. Criticism of theories, debate, dissent, and doubt are the sine qua non of a scientific approach. Therefore, there can be NO sacred cows (or theories) in science that are above critique. But what I have observed, empirically, is that there very much ARE sacred cows/theories that are not to be questioned (or, at least, questioned at your own peril). 'Activism' is inherently a political activity with a clear 'agenda' of influencing the crowd in a particular direction on an issue...it is not an open-ended inquiry focused on asking critical questions and listening to the answers nature/data give us. Science is focused on the PROCESS of knowledge generation and question answering (WHATEVER those answers happen to be). By contrast, activism appears to be RESULTS or OUTCOME focused regardless of the process utilized to achieve those outcomes.
Click to expand...

This is also one of my big issues, that there can be absolutely no debate or criticism of the underlying research. This is literally what we are trained to do.
 
WisNeuro said:
This is also one of my big issues, that there can be absolutely no debate or criticism of the underlying research. This is literally what we are trained to do.
Click to expand...
Right. And the two sides are proceeding from entirely opposite philosophical presuppositions. 'Questioning is good' vs. 'Questioning is bad.' It will be a very different field in 20 years as a result.
 
Fan_of_Meehl said:
Right. And the two sides are proceeding from entirely opposite philosophical presuppositions. 'Questioning is good' vs. 'Questioning is bad.' It will be a very different field in 20 years as a result.
Click to expand...
This is just part of the commie playbook that the DEI cult is a spawn of.
 
borne_before said:
This is just part of the commie playbook that the DEI cult is a spawn of.
Click to expand...

We don't need to pivot to Newsmax or similar outlet's talking points here. It doesn't help anything. It's more of an issue with politicizing the science past a certain point. Once you reach the far wings of any ideology, things become an ideological purity test. If you disagree on this one thing, you are antithetical to everything. This is true across the political ideological spectrum. So, if we're being honest, it's simply a chapter of every political playbook.
 
WisNeuro said:
We don't need to pivot to Newsmax or similar outlet's talking points here. It doesn't help anything. It's more of an issue with politicizing the science past a certain point. Once you reach the far wings of any ideology, things become an ideological purity test. If you disagree on this one thing, you are antithetical to everything. This is true across the political ideological spectrum. So, if we're being honest, it's simply a chapter of every political playbook.
Click to expand...
It's gonna end up like this bro: "Chief Interrogator of the Woke Inquisition, wiping blood from their knuckles: how about now herr doktor, now vill you repent for not considering DEI while reading that paper?"
 
borne_before said:
It's gonna end up like this bro: "Chief Interrogator of the Woke Inquisition, wiping blood from their knuckles: how about now herr doktor, now vill you repent for not considering DEI while reading that paper?"
Click to expand...

If you subscribe to the extreme right fear mongering, I can see how that would occupy your thoughts. I swear, moderates are the only sane people left in this country.
 
WisNeuro said:
If you subscribe to the extreme right fear mongering, I can see how that would occupy your thoughts. I swear, moderates are the only sane people left in this country.
Click to expand...
Y'all take me too seriously, My last two comments were **** posts. Sorry.
 
Honestly, I'm not seeing the big issue.

Business terms
a. Employ fiscally sound operational and management principles and
procedures appropriate for the context of professional activities.
b. Comply with ethical and regulatory requirements.
c. Promote equity, justice, cultural respect, and inclusion.

Like, which one of those bad or restrictive to practice? Well defined? No, but I'm not sure anyone would want the to prescribe those things. The advise above follows standard APA ethics, as do many things (E.g., pro bono work). These things vary from aspirational to explicit, but recall that the APA notes "psychologists strive to contribute a portion of their professional time for little or no compensation or personal advantage", so I dont see this as a 'whole new way of operating'. Are we that concerned about being told to promote cultural respect and inclusion? I get that it doesn't move the needle, but it doesn't hurt it either. Some of these positions seem broad but reasonable.

"I dont know what porn is, but I'll know it when I see it" (SOCUS Justice Stewart) seems like the approach to interpretation taken here with most of the vague things.
 
Fan_of_Meehl said:
I believe that the threat to the scientific integrity of the field is being severely underestimated, in general.

Time will tell. Let's all touch base again in 10 years.
Click to expand...

I think one of the major issues here is that science was used a cover for all kinds of atrocities in the past (thinking of all of the racist bull**** from individual differences psychologists in the 20th century) so we're now swinging hard in the other direction. Psychology risks irrelevance to the scientific community if it dispenses too hard with empiricism in favor of humanism, which has funding implications so I'm not sure it will ever go that far.
 
R. Matey said:
I think one of the major issues here is that science was used a cover for all kinds of atrocities in the past (thinking of all of the racist bull**** from individual differences psychologists in the 20th century) so we're now swinging hard in the other direction. Psychology risks irrelevance to the scientific community if it dispenses too hard with empiricism in favor of humanism, which has funding implications so I'm not sure it will ever go that far.
Click to expand...

I don't think any reasonable person disagrees that the application of science and some scientists did indeed do some bad shot back in the day, I'm not sure that the answer to that is just pushing bad science of a different ilk. Many of the things in the document are simply not very well substantiated and/or heavily empirically disputed, not even mentioning the political nature of some of the terms. I think the same aims could have been furthered without making the document seem like the mission statement of a political organization.

I honestly think most people agree with the intent, but feel that the implementation is incredibly flawed, and will lead to the baby being thrown out with the bathwater due to the perceived overt politicization of the process and document itself.
 
WisNeuro said:
I don't think any reasonable person disagrees that the application of science and some scientists did indeed do some bad shot back in the day, I'm not sure that the answer to that is just pushing bad science of a different ilk. Many of the things in the document are simply not very well substantiated and/or heavily empirically disputed, not even mentioning the political nature of some of the terms. I think the same aims could have been furthered without making the document seem like the mission statement of a political organization.

I honestly think most people agree with the intent, but feel that the implementation is incredibly flawed, and will lead to the baby being thrown out with the bathwater due to the perceived overt politicization of the process and document itself.
Click to expand...
Just out of curiosity, do the guidelines say anything about symptom or performance validity testing? If you can't comment on this, that's cool...I was just curious.
 
Fan_of_Meehl said:
Just out of curiosity, do the guidelines say anything about symptom or performance validity testing? If you can't comment on this, that's cool...I was just curious.
Click to expand...

They do, in one spot. I don't think this needs to go into great detail as we do have a pretty good position statement on that we can refer to.
 
WisNeuro said:
I'm not sure that the answer to that is just pushing bad science of a different ilk.
Click to expand...

Where in the world did this take away come from? I'm only saying paradigm shifts don't necessarily spell doom for the profession. History has shown psych evolves and it will likely continue to do so. No one is saying bad science is justified.
 
R. Matey said:
Where in the world did this take away come from? I'm only saying paradigm shifts don't necessarily spell doom for the profession. History has shown psych evolves and it will likely continue to do so. No one is saying bad science is justified.
Click to expand...

This comes from the terms used in the document itself. Terms that have little, if any, empirical backing at the moment.
 
WisNeuro said:
This comes from the terms used in the document itself. Terms that have little, if any, empirical backing at the moment.
Click to expand...

Yeah, this thread reminds me of the men and masculinity guidelines that came out of APA a few years ago: Heavy on the use of the observational designs to justify DEI concepts with very few, if any, efficacy studies on these concepts applied with actual men. I agree with Ollie's comments a few posts ago about the need to operationalize in a way that is practical. My skim of the document is on brand with everything else I've seen from various professional orgs in the past five or so years. My suspicion is that many of the recommendations are equal parts good intentions and fear of looking like the org doesn't care about underrepresented communities.
 
R. Matey said:
Yeah, this thread reminds me of the men and masculinity guidelines that came out of APA a few years ago: Heavy on the use of the observational designs to justify DEI concepts with very few, if any, efficacy studies on these concepts applied with actual men. I agree with Ollie's comments a few posts ago about the need to operationalize in a way that is practical. My skim of the document is on brand with everything else I've seen from various professional orgs in the past five or so years. My suspicion is that many of the recommendations are equal parts good intentions and fear of looking like the org doesn't care about underrepresented communities.
Click to expand...

Pretty much. The need to look like it's doing something now, vs. doing something effective with better information later on. Personally, I'm a bit more strict on my separation of politics and work. I do a good deal of political work and volunteering, but I do think that should be pretty clearly separated from my guild organizations. I think the mixture of the two, particularly in scientific organizations does more harm, than good, and further deepens the growing anti-science sentiment and distrust of actual experts in this country.
 
WisNeuro said:
This comes from the terms used in the document itself. Terms that have little, if any, empirical backing at the moment.
Click to expand...
Scott O. Lilienfeld had a solid book chapter a few years ago enumerating several key signs of a pseudoscientific approach and, among the items, was an over-reliance on what he called 'obscurantist language.' I think it was the first chapter in the Science and Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology book he edited. It would be fascinating if someone were to take that list and see how it applies to these proposed guidelines (or not).

Of course he also later published that scathing critique on the subject of microaggressions as a construct. At least it was interesting reading. I find that--without vigorous critique, debate, and controversy--the field not only drifts away from its scientific moorings...it becomes damn boring (when everyone 'agrees' a priori and there is no controversy or debate).
 
Last edited:
Anyone see the news of Minnesota Conference being temporarily suspended? I've been somewhat out of the loop, so I'm not sure if this old news or not, but it only came to my attention in the last couple of days.
 
Hopefully they will balance

1) the idealism and future input from students

2) with the practical input from practitioners who are less accustomed with being treated paternalistically, and who need to make money.

What will really happen:

1) someone with a BS degree will tell us that everything is okay, there are no training standards because standards need to be nonstandardized, we need to provide free professional services for everyone, and suddenly we need to become political activists despite having literally zero education in political activism nor funding to enact any real lobbying efforts.

2) If we enact this, our profession loses all credibility for 2-3 decades, and then we go back to medicine and beg them for a seat at the table again. And we try to act like this isn’t Rogers’ “we aren’t treating things, we are helping people… oh wait, insurance doesn’t pay for that? And we are going to go broke? And social work is gonna swoop in, and take all the hospital work?! Oh, never mind! That’s not what we are saying at all. Ignore that. It was just a joke!”
 
Last edited:
Can anyone update on recent changes to the Minnesota Guidelines debacle? I'm a lowly PhD student who doesn't have access to the listservs where these discussions go down. We only get rumblings about what is actually happening so any info would be appreciated.
 
neurofreakout said:
Can anyone update on recent changes to the Minnesota Guidelines debacle? I'm a lowly PhD student who doesn't have access to the listservs where these discussions go down. We only get rumblings about what is actually happening so any info would be appreciated.
Click to expand...

Not much of actual substance. Just a lot of people who refuse to listen to each other, mischaracterize what other people are saying, and refuse to look at the situation from anything other than an extreme us vs. them perspective. In several attempts there has been no meaningful discussion on this, and most people won't engage on discussion on the listservs due to how the discussion has been treated. You're not missing anything.
 
In the last round of "discussion," one person was permabanned from the listserv, one was suspended for 3-months, and one was given a verbal reprimand. In case anyone was wondering, I am somehow not one of those individuals.
 
WisNeuro said:
In the last round of "discussion," one person was permabanned from the listserv, one was suspended for 3-months, and one was given a verbal reprimand. In case anyone was wondering, I am somehow not one of those individuals.
Click to expand...
Doesn't sound boring.

I truly hope to see some feisty "back-and-forth" articles fencing it out in a special issue of a major neuropsych journal.

But I ain't holdin my breath.
 
Fan_of_Meehl said:
Doesn't sound boring.

I truly hope to see some feisty "back-and-forth" articles fencing it out in a special issue of a major neuropsych journal.

But I ain't holdin my breath.
Click to expand...

Yeah, ain't gonna happen. It'll just be an antiseptic, milquetoast statement at some point. There can be no disagreement on the MNC. If you disagree, you are automatically a 24-hour Fox News/Newsmax watching GOPer. I especially liked when multiple female POCs were told they don't understand racism and discrimination and needed to do some soul searching due to their criticisms.
 
PsyDr said:
I am HIGHLY amused at how fragile these professionals are.
Click to expand...

This has come up in no fewer than a handful of discussions I'm having with other professionals off the listerv. As in, it's a wonder these some of these people are capable of dressing themselves, let alone handle any social interactions at all.
 
WisNeuro said:
Not much of actual substance. Just a lot of people who refuse to listen to each other, mischaracterize what other people are saying, and refuse to look at the situation from anything other than an extreme us vs. them perspective. In several attempts there has been no meaningful discussion on this, and most people won't engage on discussion on the listservs due to how the discussion has been treated. You're not missing anything.
Click to expand...
So like...how it has always been on there? I left those listservs (D40, AACN) like 5+ years ago and don't miss them. Well, I guess I miss them in that slow train wreck kind of way, but not genuinely.
 
WisNeuro said:
In the last round of "discussion," one person was permabanned from the listserv, one was suspended for 3-months, and one was given a verbal reprimand. In case anyone was wondering, I am somehow not one of those individuals.
Click to expand...

Is it the boarded people vs non-boarded people? That was a big thing when I was in grad school.
 
WisNeuro said:
This has come up in no fewer than a handful of discussions I'm having with other professionals off the listerv. As in, it's a wonder these some of these people are capable of dressing themselves, let alone handle any social interactions at all.
Click to expand...
Don't leave us hanging. What got ppl permabanned?
 
erg923 said:
Is it the boarded people vs non-boarded people? That was a big thing when I was in grad school.
Click to expand...

Nope, this was all boarded folks.

borne_before said:
Don't leave us hanging. What got ppl permabanned?
Click to expand...

That is not public knowledge, though most of us on the list know the people who got punished.
 
neothanos said:
Yes...as if there is extreme anti-inclusivity in psychology, as a field.
Click to expand...

I mean, there is a small percentage in the field who do legitimately feel this way. But, these days, if you express any sort of disagreement or criticism against any policy or concept on the DEI front, regardless of the merit or empirical backing, there is no recourse but to lump you in with the extreme elements.
 
neothanos said:
I'd think this largely is dependent on the definition of anti-inclusion. I do concur that it is an all or nothing, with us or against us, mentality currently in play. It is interesting to see which voices that the group-think elements believe are being oppressed. I wasn't on the listserv, but I'm betting it was not a pro current definition of DEI person that was banned.
Click to expand...
That would be a correct assumption.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
Q interactive for neuropsych testing
Replies
12
Views
1K
R. Matey
R. Matey
P
Clinical Neuropsych Training and Career
Replies
18
Views
2K
borne_before
borne_before
N
Realistic neuropsych workload expectation?
Replies
14
Views
1K
NeuroP877
N
P
Pediatric neuropsych: is it the same?
Replies
33
Views
2K
Therapist4Chnge
T
PsyDr
Thoughts on HHS' Autism registry?
Replies
25
Views
3K
cincincyreds
C
Top