Thoughts on the tone here/people feeling attacked

[StellaB]

Inferring tone based on typed text, thresholds for what one considers “offensive”, thresholds for what one considers “aggressive”, style/reasons for posting, degree of projecting based on personal experiences and perceptions - all play a role here.

Absolutely. But there are also times when posts (emanating from either side) that are clearly intended to benefit the responder’s ego and has little to no value to anyone else.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[boomshakalaka]

I think the Instagram immediate gratification, I “want it so give it to me now” attitude has worked it’s way into the current crop of graduate students and applicants. This has been pretty evident in browsing through the current internship application thread. Lots of “OMGz we’re gonna’ SLAY it” and “it’s 12:01 the morning of the deadline, so where is my invite” type posts. It reads like a Buzzfeed comment section.

 

[cara susanna]

I think the Instagram immediate gratification, I “want it so give it to me now” attitude has worked it’s way into the current crop of graduate students and applicants. This has been pretty evident in browsing through the current internship application thread. Lots of “OMGz we’re gonna’ SLAY it” and “it’s 12:01 the morning of the deadline, so where is my invite” type posts. It reads like a Buzzfeed comment section.

There isn't really any research that this is a generational thing, from my understanding. Also, internship apps suck so much that I applaud anyone who displays such confidence about them.

 

[Seven_Costanza]

I think the Instagram immediate gratification, I “want it so give it to me now” attitude has worked it’s way into the current crop of graduate students and applicants. This has been pretty evident in browsing through the current internship application thread. Lots of “OMGz we’re gonna’ SLAY it” and “it’s 12:01 the morning of the deadline, so where is my invite” type posts. It reads like a Buzzfeed comment section.

Oh yes, because being encouraging, supportive, playful, and positive during this extremely stressful time is a sign of the need for “instant gratification” and not more indicative of our anxiety during this extremely challenging (and aversive for many) step in the process.

 

[ClinicalABA]

I'm a little torn on this issue. I do think some of the "tone" can be a little condescend and, frankly, a**holish, at times. That said, it's an Internet forum where you're getting advice from strangers, so caveat emptor.

I encourage those who have been put off by tone to look past it to the meat of the message. All too often (and unfortunately imo) some of the best advice around these parts comes from some of the snarkiest regular posters.

I also encourage those around these parts who have repeatedly been accused of being a jerk to consider if, in fact, they have actually been being jerks (it's been pretty consistent feedback recently, after all). There are, after all, ways of pointing out that some choices in this field are ridiculous and likely- statistically speaking- to lead to significant difficulties, without all the ad hominem stuff. I've had lots of really good mentors, supervisors, and bosses who were direct and blunt, but also kind and always looking to make me better, vs just avoiding me getting worse. I just think that the honest truth presented considerately is more effective than the same truth presented jerkishly.

 

[boomshakalaka]

Oh yes, because being encouraging, supportive, playful, and positive during this extremely stressful time is a sign of the need for “instant gratification” and not more indicative of our anxiety during this extremely challenging (and aversive for many) step in the process.

View attachment 250095

Ha! Admittedly it was “get off my lawnish.”

 

[StellaB]

- antagonism also drives discussion.

I agree with everything you say, with one caveat that antagonism *can* drive discussion. It can also be quite effective at shutting it down.

 

[Sanman]

Some thoughts about this issue after a long Friday at work:

1. Some responses, including my own, are not always the friendliest. Could they be presented in a more pleasant manner? Sure. The underlying assumption in that statement is that we are here to help the students. Why is that assumed? I often come here to blow off steam and chat with colleagues about professional issues and bourbon choices. Sometimes I try to be helpful, other times I am sarcastic and crack jokes. I am a psychologist and also a person with moods, life problems, etc. It is isn't that serious to me. Though recognize it may be to students.

2. Some context for the anger others notice, it is often directed and people trying to take shortcuts. They may not recognize it, but it is offensive to some given the work we have put in and continue to try and uphold.

If someone from high school said University of Phoenix is as good as Harvard because a college degree is just a piece of paper and their friend got a six figure job, I am sure it might ruffle some of your feathers too.

3. What is good for the individual student may not be good for the field. Do I choose to advocate for the student or my field/career.

4. While some see the anonymity here as allowing people to be mean, it can also allow a level of candor that may never happen IRL. See the students that recently came here to complain about their program. There are positives and negatives to not knowing where advice is coming from. Learn to place it in context.

5. This is just a job to me. While students and younger people may feel these decisions are life or death, I dont see it that way from the other side. I have a feeling many out doing this for years feel similar. The level of importance one puts in these responses may be more reflective of the importance they place on these activities in the context of their life.

 

[AbnormalPsych]

Some thoughts about this issue after a long Friday at work:

1. Some responses, including my own, are not always the friendliest. Could they be presented in a more pleasant manner? Sure. The underlying assumption in that statement is that we are here to help the students. Why is that assumed? I often come here to blow off steam and chat with colleagues about professional issues and bourbon choices. Sometimes I try to be helpful, other times I am sarcastic and crack jokes. I am a psychologist and also a person with moods, life problems, etc. It is isn't that serious to me. Though recognize it may be to students.

2. Some context for the anger others notice, it is often directed and people trying to take shortcuts. They may not recognize it, but it is offensive to some given the work we have put in and continue to try and uphold.

If someone from high school said University of Phoenix is as good as Harvard because a college degree is just a piece of paper and their friend got a six figure job, I am sure it might ruffle some of your feathers too.

3. What is good for the individual student may not be good for the field. Do I choose to advocate for the student or my field/career.

4. While some see the anonymity here as allowing people to be mean, it can also allow a level of candor that may never happen IRL. See the students that recently came here to complain about their program. There are positives and negatives to not knowing where advice is coming from. Learn to place it in context.

5. This is just a job to me. While students and younger people may feel these decisions are life or death, I dont see it that way from the other side. I have a feeling many out doing this for years feel similar. The level of importance one puts in these responses may be more reflective of the importance they place on these activities in the context of their life.

Well said. I enjoy coming to this forum in the free moments I have. My contributions are limited by time, energy, and the above variables. I try to be straightforward and helpful. Also, this is the internet. Tone, etc can also be misinterpreted quite easily.

 

[StellaB]

Some thoughts about this issue after a long Friday at work:

1. Some responses, including my own, are not always the friendliest. Could they be presented in a more pleasant manner? Sure. The underlying assumption in that statement is that we are here to help the students. Why is that assumed? I often come here to blow off steam and chat with colleagues about professional issues and bourbon choices. Sometimes I try to be helpful, other times I am sarcastic and crack jokes. I am a psychologist and also a person with moods, life problems, etc. It is isn't that serious to me. Though recognize it may be to students.

2. Some context for the anger others notice, it is often directed and people trying to take shortcuts. They may not recognize it, but it is offensive to some given the work we have put in and continue to try and uphold.

If someone from high school said University of Phoenix is as good as Harvard because a college degree is just a piece of paper and their friend got a six figure job, I am sure it might ruffle some of your feathers too.

3. What is good for the individual student may not be good for the field. Do I choose to advocate for the student or my field/career.

4. While some see the anonymity here as allowing people to be mean, it can also allow a level of candor that may never happen IRL. See the students that recently came here to complain about their program. There are positives and negatives to not knowing where advice is coming from. Learn to place it in context.

5. This is just a job to me. While students and younger people may feel these decisions are life or death, I dont see it that way from the other side. I have a feeling many out doing this for years feel similar. The level of importance one puts in these responses may be more reflective of the importance they place on these activities in the context of their life.

It is interesting and important to think about the different contexts affecting the posters on here. I would add that for a lot of prospective students who do not come from educated families, the lack of connection to other forms of support/advice within the field can rmake this site feel borderline hostile - and makes you wonder if the entire field is like this. The majority of my friends now are highly educated, as I’m sure is the case for most of us who are done jumping through the flaming hoops on the road to becoming fully fledged. When I was just starting out, and came here mostly to just read about the process and try to find some answers, I was extremely intimidated and at times downright discouraged by what I saw. I ended up spending very little time here or I might have talked myself out of even trying.

 

[StellaB]

If I knew about this place when I was applying to graduate school, I might not have applied. Not from being intimidated, but the opposite. Same reason I almost left graduate school after the first year. Incredulity at the thought process of some psychologists.

Lol - if I had met some of my cohort-mates ahead of time I probably wouldn’t have felt intimidated.

 

[foreverbull]

Online, things get taken to extremes very rapidly. We all have different communication styles and different beliefs about how to offer advice effectively.

But it isn’t just students, but fellow psychologists who get talked down to, and I have experienced it myself when emotions get stirred up. I’ve been “snarked” at many a time in this forum. And while I agreed to reflect on the points brought up by some of the professionals in the past, I didn’t get the same acknowledgement or consideration in return as a fellow professional, which is a strong message in and of itself if those dishing it out can’t also take feedback from peers or students, even when worded as a request to reflect, as I’ve done several times in here when things got ugly.

Point being, although many in this forum tell students and others who disagree to grow thicker skin, feedback is generally not bidirectional in here; there’s definitely a dynamic of some folks who take it for granted that they are allowed to offer advice + snark but ignore feedback that calls for them to consider their effect on others and/or respond with more sarcasm. The same defensiveness we accuse entitled students of having is rampant amongst some professionals in here as well.

The reality is, very few of us are probably at extremes on this, and I think we’re all fine with direct advice—direct meaning straightforward, not tentative, not flowery, just the info put out there, which isn’t rude or condescending (until harsh sarcasm directed toward the person is added or little poking jabs meant to take the person down a notch are thrown in). It IS a lot worse in the medical forums, but given our training being in the interpersonal realm, I would certainly hope we could do better than that!

Ultimately, I’d like to see one side open to working on letting go of tactless comments and the other side open to working on speaking with more tact....and openness to bidirectional feedback.

 

[GradStudent2020]

I appreciate the conversation being had. We (the moderators) want to foster atmospheres of both helpfulness/support and honesty/candidness. It can be very difficult, depending on one's situation, to receive impartial and genuine feedback and advice on academic and professional issues in psychology, and perhaps even more difficult to obtain such from multiple sources. SDN can also be a great resource for those already practicing to give back to the field, and to remain in touch with the current issues and atmosphere facing students and other trainees.

As futureapppsy2 noted earlier, if there are concerns about posts, we encourage all users to report them; all reports are reviewed by the moderating staff. And if there are posters whose particular style you don't care for or appreciate, there is also the option to block individual members.

You actually mocked me when I voiced concern on a post recently. (Oh, shame on us!... or something similiar).

Whenever moderators also engage in the behaviors that posters frequently point out as problematic, it seems unlikely that there will be any change.

Past that, you can see on *this* thread and on many others that posters feel completely justified on how they treat trainees asking questions. Some recent “reasons”-
It is my ethical duty to the field
It will not impact me professionally
It is good for you! Time to toughen up to prepare for the field.
This is who I am and I don’t care to change.
You are too sensitive and took my comment wrong.
It was a joke (or snark, or sarcasm)
We are nicer here than other Internet forums
You won’t get the message if it’s not delivered in a harsh way

Some of these reasons, frequently couched in loooooonnnnnggg, condescending tirades about how the poster/trainee is the problem, are weak.

*replaced mansplaining as it was pointed out to be gender-hostile

 

[deleted480308]

You actually mocked me when I voiced concern on a post recently. (Oh, shame on us!... or something similiar).

Whenever moderators also engage in the behaviors that posters frequently point out as problematic, it seems unlikely that there will be any change.

Past that, you can see on *this* thread and on many others that posters feel completely justified on how they treat trainees asking questions. Some recent “reasons”-
It is my ethical duty to the field
It will not impact me professionally
It is good for you! Time to toughen up to prepare for the field.
This is who I am and I don’t care to change.
You are too sensitive and took my comment wrong.
It was a joke (or snark, or sarcasm)
We are nicer here than other Internet forums
You won’t get the message if it’s not delivered in a harsh way

Some of these reasons, frequently couched in loooooonnnnnggg, mansplaining tirades about how the poster/trainee is the problem, are weak.

Mansplaining? You don’t find those presumptive digs to be counterproductive to your desire to be taken seriously?

 

[Sanman]

You actually mocked me when I voiced concern on a post recently. (Oh, shame on us!... or something similiar).

Whenever moderators also engage in the behaviors that posters frequently point out as problematic, it seems unlikely that there will be any change.

Past that, you can see on *this* thread and on many others that posters feel completely justified on how they treat trainees asking questions. Some recent “reasons”-
It is my ethical duty to the field
It will not impact me professionally
It is good for you! Time to toughen up to prepare for the field.
This is who I am and I don’t care to change.
You are too sensitive and took my comment wrong.
It was a joke (or snark, or sarcasm)
We are nicer here than other Internet forums
You won’t get the message if it’s not delivered in a harsh way

Some of these reasons, frequently couched in loooooonnnnnggg, mansplaining tirades about how the poster/trainee is the problem, are weak.

Two questions,

1. What would you rather see?
2. What would these threads/ the forum look like if all the posters that responded here and defended snark didn't respond or were blocked from a question you asked?

 

[foreverbull]

It would read like it did when I started posting here. I’m not saying I changed the tone. Just that when I started posting here, the demographic seemed different and the volume was different. The messages would be.

- follow your dreams
- phd is for research, psyd is for clinical
- you’ll make plenty of money as a psychologist, don’t worry about the debt.
- I know lots of clinicians that are great and graduated from Alliant/argosy (insert professional school here)
- you can do a psychology degree part time. Don’t worry about moving. Who wants to live in a small town anyway? Southern California for life! I love the beach.

You’re resorting to extremes to make a point, it sounds like. So should we glean that without snark/condescension, these viewpoints can’t be challenged? Several of us in here offer the same advice and agree to varying extents, we just communicate it without the snark factor. The same points you consider important can be made without it. I’m not connecting how condescension is necessary as a part of the information/warning. In fact, I’d argue that it can have the opposite effect as intended.

 

[foreverbull]

- I just looked at the thread that spawned this.
- the first sign of snark was grad2020, or whatever their name is, preemptively complaining about tone
- the op met every stereotype of a mark for Alliant. Low gpa. Didn’t want to leave the Bay Area. Poor understanding of the field. Wanted a doctorate because dr. Almost read like a troll of issues that are themes on this forum.
- at least in the first page, including the apparently dreaded “erg” (??? Why?), didn’t have any snark from anyone except those complaining about tone preemptively.

That student “complaining about tone pre-emptively” had been talked down to in a prior thread by psychologists, so this spilled into this thread. It wasn’t out of nowhere.

And I agree that snark goes both ways...both sides could do less of it.

More generally, though, you didn’t respond to my overall question (why snark is necessary to share important info). And that goes for either side.
That was the overall point of my post you quoted, and you chose to direct attention to who “started” it in one example.

You’re resorting to extremes to make a point, it sounds like. So should we glean that without snark/condescension, these viewpoints can’t be challenged? Several of us in here offer the same advice and agree to varying extents, we just communicate it without the snark factor. The same points you consider important can be made without it. I’m not connecting how condescension is necessary as a part of the information/warning. In fact, I’d argue that it can have the opposite effect as intended.

Feel free to respond to the overall point.

 

[Unipsychler]

“Snark” can be a fairly normal response; it can be pathological. Continuums and what not. Oversensitivity to tone can also be pathological....you know, personality disorders. Taking offense is a form of power. It’s just part of the argument dynamic that people choose to take if they have a poor position.

Just gotta point out here that if we're talking about "continuums and whatnot", we do have to fill out both ends of all topics mentioned.

You missed this one: "Sensitivity to tone can be a fairly normal response." Just wanna add that in there if we're also considering Cluster B diagnoses.

 

[Unipsychler]

Pondering Foreverbull's point here, about whether snark is necessary. It's hard to answer that question, but a related question is: What is the function of snark? Can it add anything meaningful to a message, that can't be conveyed by the information alone?

I think that snark is actually one way to convey feeling offended. It can communicate, "The content of your question and/or the way you are asking it is offensive to me." I can entertain that this could have value, in cases where posters are being persistently impervious to feedback. Because there is a difference between asking reasonable questions that a newbie wouldn't be expected to know about, and stubbornly arguing against the consensus of experts that, e.g., you are the chosen one who can take shortcuts to a high-level career with no consequences. (To be clear I am NOT referencing anyone in particular with that characterization; it's just a common bogeyman that we get defensive about.) Out in real life, people with actual power over students' futures may be put off by it, but are less likely to respond in a transparent way. So is it potentially valuable info for students to get that feedback online, so they know when they're toeing that line of actually being off-putting to others?

That still wouldn't mean that it's necessary per se, I'm just wondering if it has any potential value at all.

Of course the flip side is that 1) Snark can also serve a function of just blowing off steam or boosting the ego of the poster, which I don't think is helpful to other posters, and 2) If we are too quick to dish out the snark then we're sending the message that reasonable questions/explorations are offensive, which I think is very counterproductive.

And finally, I am now kicking myself for not naming myself SansaSnark.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

You actually mocked me when I voiced concern on a post recently. (Oh, shame on us!... or something similiar).

Whenever moderators also engage in the behaviors that posters frequently point out as problematic, it seems unlikely that there will be any change.

Past that, you can see on *this* thread and on many others that posters feel completely justified on how they treat trainees asking questions. Some recent “reasons”-
It is my ethical duty to the field
It will not impact me professionally
It is good for you! Time to toughen up to prepare for the field.
This is who I am and I don’t care to change.
You are too sensitive and took my comment wrong.
It was a joke (or snark, or sarcasm)
We are nicer here than other Internet forums
You won’t get the message if it’s not delivered in a harsh way

Some of these reasons, frequently couched in loooooonnnnnggg, mansplaining tirades about how the poster/trainee is the problem, are weak.

I would be curious as to which post of mine came across as mocking so that I might review it, as that's never been my intention on these forums.

 

[attitudelikeasunrise]

I'd like to also remind people that they are always free to block a user. I've been accused of the "snarky" tone in the past. I respond on here no differently than I do in real life, and that isn't changing any time soon. There are always different sides to these issues, and you can either hear them all, or sit in an echo chamber and hear the only side you wanted to hear. No one is violating the TOS.

I was honestly kind of shocked one day when I came upon an old internship interview forum where students/trainees were overtly attacking you for your advice and tone. I suppose I am a bit old-school in my world perspectives, but nine times out of ten I would rather take advice from someone already working in the field who has real-life experience and I still believe there are benefits of hierarchical systems. I personally have very much appreciated your straight-to-the-point approach as well as some other clinicians that speak out regularly on here. It is such a nice departure from the language policing, virtue signaling, echo chamber/group think that I have encountered in my graduate program, and gives me hope that things get better once you leave the graduate school environment.

Also, for what it's worth, I am a woman. So for those insinuating that this is a gender-related problem, I represent at least one woman who has no problem with the way that advice is given on this forum.

 

[Pragma]

People are very overly reactive at times. A few years ago I posted about an issue some of my Psy.D externs/students were dealing with with their DCTs that was a negative, but factual, issue. Some poster took it the wrong way and blasted me and called it a “Trump level of BS.” I don’t recall ever getting an apology even though it became pretty clear that the poster didn’t know what they were talking about. They also didn’t seemed concerned about the actual issue that was facing the students I worked with from PsyD programs.

Some people just don’t deal well with negative news, and react poorly regardless of how the news is delivered (even if it is well-intentioned).

What seems apparent to me, anecdotally, is that a lot of folks newer to the field have been indoctrinated with an ideology that doesn’t actually tolerate other perspectives, and are quick to go ad hominem with the isms without considering the rest of the context. It’s easier to just assign a label and dig yourself in further to your position than it is to actually make the effort to either perspective-take or to accept that there might be other valid views out there than your own. Fundamental attribution error on steroids and weaponized, and nowadays, socialized.

 

[deleted106747]

"Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right" - Ricky Gervais.

I don't see that problem coming only from people with the newer perspectives, however. Also, there's a great deal of value in saying something so that it can be heard, vs. just making someone's defenses go up and their ears get blocked. Additionally, those with extreme positions tend to get more attention than those with less extreme, which obfuscates those with more nuanced viewpoints.

All that being said, I think sometimes the frustration on this board that comes out as snark is due to the dynamic that others have pointed out: someone asks a question about attending a certain school, posters advise against it with evidence, and the original poster becomes very argumentative about why their choice is a good one - a dynamic which demonstrates that the question asker really just wanted everyone to tell them they are okay, that they can go with their plan, they can move forward without fear or financial/career repercussion.

Allow me to take the opportunity again to advise anyone who is on these boards to NOT go into significant debt. I have been on both sides of that situation (no debt, and moderately significant debt) and not having it really makes life so much better.

 

[Pragma]

Pondering Foreverbull's point here, about whether snark is necessary. It's hard to answer that question, but a related question is: What is the function of snark? Can it add anything meaningful to a message, that can't be conveyed by the information alone?

I think that snark is actually one way to convey feeling offended. It can communicate, "The content of your question and/or the way you are asking it is offensive to me." I can entertain that this could have value, in cases where posters are being persistently impervious to feedback. Because there is a difference between asking reasonable questions that a newbie wouldn't be expected to know about, and stubbornly arguing against the consensus of experts that, e.g., you are the chosen one who can take shortcuts to a high-level career with no consequences. (To be clear I am NOT referencing anyone in particular with that characterization; it's just a common bogeyman that we get defensive about.) Out in real life, people with actual power over students' futures may be put off by it, but are less likely to respond in a transparent way. So is it potentially valuable info for students to get that feedback online, so they know when they're toeing that line of actually being off-putting to others?

That still wouldn't mean that it's necessary per se, I'm just wondering if it has any potential value at all.

Of course the flip side is that 1) Snark can also serve a function of just blowing off steam or boosting the ego of the poster, which I don't think is helpful to other posters, and 2) If we are too quick to dish out the snark then we're sending the message that reasonable questions/explorations are offensive, which I think is very counterproductive.

And finally, I am now kicking myself for not naming myself SansaSnark.

Snark is something that a lot of folks enjoy when it supports their position. It is a 2-way street and I personally am not a fan of policing language, even if I strongly disagree with a snarky individual.

 

[GradStudent2020]

Two questions,

1. What would you rather see?
2. What would these threads/ the forum look like if all the posters that responded here and defended snark didn't respond or were blocked from a question you asked?

It’s not that challenging to provide a direct response without snark.

Personally, I have a lot of ways to get support and mentorship outside of this forum. Your #2 question reflects a real issue with this forum. The frequent posters claiming relevant experience are often the most entitled to the worst behavior. So trainees without other sources of support feel they have to put up with the terrible treatment in order to get any advice.

It’s so interesting that certain posters only want to participate (provide “support”) if they can do it with a heavy dose of ****ty behavior.

I forgot to add that to my list of reasons, so here is an addition.

I’m giving you good advice so you don’t get to complain if I call you names, criticize your thinking skills, or ignore your actual questions. You should still be thankful I’m bestowing my wisdom on you.

 

[GradStudent2020]

Mansplaining? You don’t find those presumptive digs to be counterproductive to your desire to be taken seriously?

I don’t agree using the term “mansplaining” is at all presumptive. I’m referring to a pattern that is pretty visible in numerous threads. It’s not a “dig”, it’s a description of a behavior that is not limited to one poster.

 

[GradStudent2020]

I was honestly kind of shocked one day when I came upon

“Snark” can be a fairly normal response; it can be pathological. Continuums and what not. Oversensitivity to tone can also be pathological....you know, personality disorders. Taking offense is a form of power. It’s just part of the argument dynamic that people choose to take if they have a poor position.

Sure, I agree, “be kind” is a great aspiration.

Perhaps we need a “check your privilege” like catchphrase for those that find themselves constantly in a state of being offended. “Check your cluster b.”

Are you suggesting that trainees that don’t agree with the tone are exhibiting personality disorder traits? Being offended by things that are offensive isn’t a character flaw. Doing offensive things, even when it’s repeatedly pointed out as offensive by multiple people, however......

This is just another way to deflect responsibility when called out for poor behavior. The (often appropriately) offended party is “too sensitive”, “dense”, “salty”, “experiencing cognitive dissonance”, “unwilling to listen to feedback”, “exhibiting cluster b traits”, etc.

 

[memedoctor]

People are very overly reactive at times. A few years ago I posted about an issue some of my Psy.D externs/students were dealing with with their DCTs that was a negative, but factual, issue. Some poster took it the wrong way and blasted me and called it a “Trump level of BS.” I don’t recall ever getting an apology even though it became pretty clear that the poster didn’t know what they were talking about. They also didn’t seemed concerned about the actual issue that was facing the students I worked with from PsyD programs.

Some people just don’t deal well with negative news, and react poorly regardless of how the news is delivered (even if it is well-intentioned).

What seems apparent to me, anecdotally, is that a lot of folks newer to the field have been indoctrinated with an ideology that doesn’t actually tolerate other perspectives, and are quick to go ad hominem with the isms without considering the rest of the context. It’s easier to just assign a label and dig yourself in further to your position than it is to actually make the effort to either perspective-take or to accept that there might be other valid views out there than your own. Fundamental attribution error on steroids and weaponized, and nowadays, socialized.

I think that there are some perspectives and belief systems that should not be tolerated, because it is simply not the case that all other views are valid. You'd think that in 2019 there wouldn't be a growing population of people who believe that the earth is flat - but feel free to search social media for flat-earth conspiracies and gaze into that abyss for a while.
Some of these completely invalid views are far more harmful than flat-eartherism and should be marginalized - ESPECIALLY in a mental health profession. Where this line is drawn is not always clear and is what should be open to discussion - but suggesting that we as a field should tolerate and discuss all viewpoints is a liberal idea that I really hope we can move past. We should absolutely be hostile toward ideological beliefs that are profoundly harmful to society and go completely against the scientific consensus.

For example, in a thread I posted last night about the clinical implications of climate change, one of the first responses was from someone clearly looking to argue that climate change is not real or is not a problem. I think that this level of denialism at this point in history is utterly abhorrent and should not be tolerated among our colleagues. Other lines of discussion that I think should be immediately shut down and not humored in any capacity are things like anti-vaccination or white supremacist propaganda (e.g. holocaust denialism, "white genocide" crap). I thankfully haven't seen either of those other two things here yet (though I have certainly seen some content that I think falls just shy of overt white supremacist propaganda). Nobody in our field, as people in positions of significant social power, should feel comfortable holding some of those views - much less expressing them.

 

[GradStudent2020]

It’s not only trainees. There’s people at all levels here.

I’m not into diagnosing people on an Internet forum. My comment was in jest. But, be that as it may, yes, taking offense a lot is probably not a great trait in general. People tend to walk on eggshells around people like that. Hence, my cluster b jab.

Feel free to keep criticizing how people talk on the internet.

This is a discussion explicitly about how people talk on the internet.

I disagree that taking offense is not a great trait. I see a lot of people in a lot of settings feel unable to speak up when others are being directly or passively aggressive to them or others. Which allows others to feel that aggressive behavior is appropriate or at least they can get away with it without any consequence.

 

[GradStudent2020]

I appreciate that, I hadn’t thought of that term in that way. I will I use gender-neutral language such as “condescending”, “talking down”, etc in the future.

 

[memedoctor]

I recognize my previous post is going in a different direction than the initial topic of the thread, but I think that all of this can be contextualized when you consider power dynamics into the equation. A person in a position of power (professor, psychologist, etc) being snarky and shutting down someone in a position of considerably less power (say an applicant or student), is an entirely different beast than a grad student getting snarky or "offended" by how someone is talking to them and using their "power of getting offended." Ironically, I suppose I am tending to side with the "tough love" crowd here that snark is important and that we should be able to deal with conflict - but we should be considering power dynamics into the equation, and maybe the conservative old guard should consider toughening up and opening up to the possibility that maybe their viewpoints don't actually warrant uncritical acceptance.

 

[deleted480308]

I don’t agree using the term “mansplaining” is at all presumptive. I’m referring to a pattern that is pretty visible in numerous threads. It’s not a “dig”, it’s a description of a behavior that is not limited to one poster.

It’s a childish, weak discussion tactic that requires the targeted and the speaker to be particular genders and in an anonymous forum that requires some presumption.

It would be far more intellectually honest to criticize the merits of a particular argument without bringing anyone’s gender into the mix

 

[memedoctor]

I agree with most of this, especially the latter.

The climate change one, yes, but I think it is reasonable to argue that psychotherapy associated with catastrophic climate change is a bit premature. California hasn’t fallen into the ocean quite yet.

Bringing this to our field and considerations for issues that have sparked the most tone complaints on the forum. Psyd/professional schools/debt/apa accreditation, online programs, basically any standards based discussion tends to evoke a response. So, what should be intolerable regarding the field? I’d say alliant is there.

I'm fine with the line being that "maybe it's premature to do x" is an acceptable thing to voice, even though I disagree - sure. I'm comfortable with that line, so long as the discussion isn't getting derailed by having to deal with a denialist.

As for the specific issues relating to the for profit training institutions, I'm not as versed on the issues and actually found the discussion to be pretty helpful. I thought the initial thread that provoked this thread was a really interesting case, because while I actually ended up agreeing with some of the sentiment behind the whole license plate comment, it was pretty obviously delivered without tact. Then when the original poster handled the interaction with aplomb and demonstrated that she was clearly willing to consider feedback and gave direct and honest feedback about how the communication style impacted her - there seemed to be no willingness or interest on the other end to acknowledge this. This, to me, indicates a reckless arrogance and stubbornness. I'm not sure what exactly to do about the fact that there are recklessly arrogant clinical psychologists out there, and I don't think there's a blanket solution. I think it's possibly just what's happening right now - frank discussion about what our social norms are and should be, and social consequences for when they're broken.

 

[GradStudent2020]

It’s a childish, weak discussion tactic that requires the targeted and the speaker to be particular genders and in an anonymous forum that requires some presumption.

It would be far more intellectually honest to criticize the merits of a particular argument without bringing anyone’s gender into the mix

I addressed this above.

I don’t agree that using the term is “childish” or “weak”, but it is an unnecessarily gendered short-cut to describe a particular behavior. In social circumstances I hear the term applied to behavior of both sexes even if it is meant to be a description of a behavior demonstrated by men. I agree I should be more thoughtful in my language use.

 

[StellaB]

I addressed this above.

I don’t agree that using the term is “childish” or “weak”, but it is an unnecessarily gendered short-cut to describe a particular behavior. In social circumstances I hear the term applied to behavior of both sexes even if it is meant to be a description of a behavior demonstrated by men. I agree I should be more thoughtful in my language use.

Myself as well

 

[Sanman]

I recognize my previous post is going in a different direction than the initial topic of the thread, but I think that all of this can be contextualized when you consider power dynamics into the equation. A person in a position of power (professor, psychologist, etc) being snarky and shutting down someone in a position of considerably less power (say an applicant or student), is an entirely different beast than a grad student getting snarky or "offended" by how someone is talking to them and using their "power of getting offended." Ironically, I suppose I am tending to side with the "tough love" crowd here that snark is important and that we should be able to deal with conflict - but we should be considering power dynamics into the equation, and maybe the conservative old guard should consider toughening up and opening up to the possibility that maybe their viewpoints don't actually warrant uncritical acceptance.

Agreed, there are power dynamics in play. Though part of that is incentive more than anything. Do people have to be snarky? No. Can people be more considerate and take time to consider a specific situation and opinion? Yes.

That would benefit the student/trainee with better advice. It benefits SDN with greater traffic and possibly advertising revenue. It does nothing for the old guard other than possibly create future competition for themselves. The goal of the site is more transparency through the training process at no financial cost to student. Perhaps the cost is snark or more reactionary, less considered commentary than one that is incentivized in some way.

Now if SDN wants to pay me to respond here, we have a different ball game.

 

[Pragma]

If you can’t beat them, join them?

Amazon product

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Now, I’m just mean to the old guard.

Uhm...you *are* part of the old guard, old man.

(I know JS, so I know his snowflake power is sufficient enough to handle poking fun. #FakeNews)

 

[attitudelikeasunrise]

Out of the graduate school environment, if you are in a psychology space, the tendency is going to be language policing and virtue signaling. It's just a factor relative to attractiveness of the field to a certain demographic. But, the way to deal with that, in my experience, is to not interact with those people on that level. There's no point.

This makes sense to me. Do you literally remain silent/not comment when people go down the virtue signaling path etc. or do you overtly state that you don't believe in what they are saying and therefore aren't going to engage in conversation with them? I understand the futility of debating with people like this, though I wonder if there is any benefit to explicitly voicing that you disagree with them so they at least know that not everyone is aligned with their agenda?

 

[WisNeuro]

Well, when someone accused @AcronymAllergy of mocking, this thread has officially jumped the shark. We are officially in some sort of Kafkaesque world where truth is subjective. Truly idiotic.

 

[cara susanna]

I do actually enjoy how this is a space where I can discuss mental health and psychology without having to worry about Leftbook sorts of things (e.g. using words like "neurotypical," trigger/content warnings, getting called sadistic for promoting exposure therapy, etc). I don't think that this means we have to be entirely on the other side, though. There is a happy medium.

 

[NeuroWise]

Well, when someone accused @AcronymAllergy of mocking, this thread has officially jumped the shark. We are officially in some sort of Kafkaesque world where truth is subjective. Truly idiotic.

I don't regularly come to the forum, but when I do, my favorite thing is to read through these long-ass threads and track the progressive decline into the absurd. It's inevitable too. So fun.

 

[Sanman]

I do actually enjoy how this is a space where I can discuss mental health and psychology without having to worry about Leftbook sorts of things (e.g. using words like "neurotypical," trigger/content warnings, getting called sadistic for promoting exposure therapy, etc). I don't think that this means we have to be entirely on the other side, though. There is a happy medium.

Seriously on the bolded part? Wow.

 

[GradStudent2020]

Seriously on the bolded part? Wow.

I’ve seen that but only on social media/forums where the participants have zero formal training in the field.

 

[cara susanna]

Seriously on the bolded part? Wow.

Yup. Although I should specify that these aren't professional groups or anything. Also, for some reason, EMDR is just fine--not only fine, but the only treatment anyone should ever do. And you wouldn't believe the number of people who say that they're diagnosed with complex PTSD (SDNers probably all know my thoughts on that particular diagnosis)...

 

[Sanman]

Yup. Although I should specify that these aren't professional groups or anything. Also, for some reason, EMDR is just fine--not only fine, but the only treatment anyone should ever do. And you wouldn't believe the number of people who say that they're diagnosed with complex PTSD (SDNers probably all know my thoughts on that particular diagnosis)...

I work at the VA, who doesn't have that dx?

 

[cara susanna]

I work at the VA, who doesn't have that dx?

I work in the VA too, and I've only ever seen it listed a few times as the actual diagnosis.

 

[Pragma]

Well, when someone accused @AcronymAllergy of mocking, this thread has officially jumped the shark. We are officially in some sort of Kafkaesque world where truth is subjective. Truly idiotic.

AA can certainly be a cyberbully. I'm pretty sure when not moderating here, AA is pretty busy trolling comments sections on youtube.

 

[WisNeuro]

AA can certainly be a cyberbully. I'm pretty sure when not moderating here, AA is pretty busy trolling comments sections on youtube.

I saw him kick a puppy once, right after slapping a baby.

 

[erg923]

1. As evidenced by today's posts: I have, and will continue to watch my "tone."

2. Most don't know this, but @AcronymAllergy is actually...