Unrespected Degree now what?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Members don't see this ad.
PSYDR said:
I disagree. Let me demonstrate:

Do you have proof that the only response to being patronized is defensiveness?

If the only possible response is for you to defend this opinion without providing proof, then you're correct. But you're also without any backing. And putting your own opinion as higher than anyone else's.

If you provide a citation, then both you and I have increased our knowledge base, but your initial statement is incorrect. Because your response is to sublimate the response to whatever you mean by defensiveness into something productive.
Click to expand...

People in here used their own anecdotes to encourage their style of communicating (i.e. mention their professional lives and how it works for them in practice), and when I disagreed and offer an opinion of how it doesn't work for people around me practically, I got asked to back it with research. Why is it just taken for granted that patronizing language is acceptable and professionally sound due to a few anecdotes? Where's the research to back up that patronizing language is perceived as helpful or supportive?

While this doesn't pertain to defensiveness specifically, several studies explore the negative evaluations by others of patronizing language, so I can at least offer some evidence in the realm of negative perception. There is a lot of research relating to elderly populations regarding "elderspeak", but rarer to find non-elder-related research on the topic. These are just a handful, and I haven't read them extensively, but they are relevant.
SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research
http://nca.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00909889709365475
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0778/077edf033819beefdb3b1d961e8e42fc1459.pdf
SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research

I'd be curious to also informally assess folks in here in terms of how they perceive being patronized when they ask for advice for general questions. While I understand the need for evidence, I don't think it's farfetched to believe patronizing others could be interpreted or perceived negatively when it's a negative way to speak to others and treat them as lesser than.

Ultimately, there are direct ways of sharing opinions and information with tact. I don't know why they would need to be mutually exclusive.
 
Last edited:
I don't think anybody hear meant to be insulting or patronizing. You can't really express humorous exacerbation and jostling via Internet posts, right?

But after a while of posters telling you relatively common sense things/points over and over, and the poster not getting it, or recognizing it...of course people are going to come to a point where they are like "What gives with you, man!?"

This is similar to when I was supervising an internship. After a while of gentle guidance, at a point you just have to say "get out of dreamland, dude!"

It's ineffective an unrealistic to pretend that we are in a therapy room all the time when we talk to our students and peers.
 
Last edited:
foreverbull said:
People in here used their own anecdotes to encourage their style of communicating (i.e. mention their professional lives and how it works for them in practice), and when I disagreed and offer an opinion of how it doesn't work for people around me practically, I got asked to back it with research. Why is it just taken for granted that patronizing language is acceptable and professionally sound due to a few anecdotes? Where's the research to back up that patronizing language is perceived as helpful or supportive?

While this doesn't pertain to defensiveness specifically, several studies explore the negative evaluations by others of patronizing language, so I can at least offer some evidence in the realm of negative perception. There is a lot of research relating to elderly populations regarding "elderspeak", but rarer to find non-elder-related research on the topic. These are just a handful, and I haven't read them extensively, but they are relevant.
SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research
http://nca.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00909889709365475
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0778/077edf033819beefdb3b1d961e8e42fc1459.pdf
SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research

I'd be curious to also informally assess folks in here in terms of how they perceive being patronized when they ask for advice for general questions. While I understand the need for evidence, I don't think it's farfetched to believe patronizing others could be interpreted or perceived negatively when it's a negative way to speak to others and treat them as lesser than.

Ultimately, there are direct ways of sharing opinions and information with tact. I don't know why they would need to be mutually exclusive.
Click to expand...


So, your statement that the only response to being patronized is defensiveness is incorrect. There are other responses as you have just demonstrated.

To be clear, I never said being patronizing was PERCEIVED to be helpful. I said that the healthy response to being shamed was resolving the problem.

There is a wealth of literature about negative appraisal. Starting with the psychoanalystic literature, there is theoretical discussion about the difference in response between healthy individuals and individuals with pathological personality structures (e.g., Kunen, Higgins, Singer, Steele, etc). The PDR explores the differences between shame and guilt, and this is continued in CBT literature. In the literature, the term reflected self appraisal is key here. Discussed by such people as Meade. Moving on to test construction, we can see that self report is not considered a valid method in isolation due to idealized perception of self. In developmental psychology, the idea of shame vs. self control relies upon social appraisal including being patronized. There are healthy and neurotic responses to this as discussed by Erickson. Bandura discussed how social appraisal can affect one's actions. Empirically tested by such people as Passani. In CBT, perhaps the easiest find is in the social anxiety disorder literature. There is consensus here that shame is different than guilt. Same as the psychoanalystic research. Keeping your theory in mind that the only possible response to being patronized is to be defensive, one would have to explain why CBT for SAD is effective in shame reduction (e.g., Hedman, et al, 2013).
 
PSYDR said:
So, your statement that the only response to being patronized is defensiveness is incorrect. There are other responses as you have just demonstrated.

To be clear, I never said being patronizing was PERCEIVED to be helpful. I said that the healthy response to being shamed was resolving the problem.

There is a wealth of literature about negative appraisal. Starting with the psychoanalystic literature, there is theoretical discussion about the difference in response between healthy individuals and individuals with pathological personality structures (e.g., Kunen, Higgins, Singer, Steele, etc). The PDR explores the differences between shame and guilt, and this is continued in CBT literature. In the literature, the term reflected self appraisal is key here. Discussed by such people as Meade. Moving on to test construction, we can see that self report is not considered a valid method in isolation due to idealized perception of self. In developmental psychology, the idea of shame vs. self control relies upon social appraisal including being patronized. There are healthy and neurotic responses to this as discussed by Erickson. Bandura discussed how social appraisal can affect one's actions. Empirically tested by such people as Passani. In CBT, perhaps the easiest find is in the social anxiety disorder literature. There is consensus here that shame is different than guilt. Same as the psychoanalystic research. Keeping your theory in mind that the only possible response to being patronized is to be defensive, one would have to explain why CBT for SAD is effective in shame reduction (e.g., Hedman, et al, 2013).
Click to expand...

I altered my statements accordingly with the literature to note negative perception of patronizing language rather than sticking to defensiveness, you will have noticed. I altered my "theory" accordingly.

We're back to the shame literature. Essentially you seem to be giving Carte Blanche to people patronizing since it's implied that the interpretation/need for resolution falls on the receiver. Following this logic, there's zero responsibility on the part of those who feel the need to talk down to others to make a point (can't there be a point made that highlights a discrepancy without condescension?). I'd like to understand more about the communicators and correlated traits.

Research aside, people in here present facts and direct opinions without being insulting or patronizing, so tact and directness are not mutually exclusive. I've seen several threads where there wasn't an issue, so I know it can be done. The moment peole stop communicating their own facts/experience and start talking like "what's wrong with you (op) for X, Y, or Z" or "that's stupid" is when it starts devolving. We represent this field in this forum and I would hope we show some tact in doing so, that's all. I don't think that's unreasonable by any means.
 
People that come here are adults, they should be able to wade through a variety of comments and find meaningful information within and between. Sometimes bad decisions need to be called out as such. Too often we deliver feedback in a way that seeks to validate/give false equivalence to each viewpoint. That's stupid, and it makes us look stupid as a profession. I doubt we'll ever come to an agreement on this as it gets hashed out every few months, with people falling fairly even on both sides. In the end, though, those speaking bluntly, are not really troubled, and thus have no real desire or impetus to change.
 
"In addition to exploitation, I think another problem is that by allowing programs that are bad, that don't have adequate training, that require students to take on huge amounts of debt, that lack resources and scientific rigor, we are selecting for the latter student. More than 50 percent of new clinical psych grads come from NCSPP programs. What this does is it changes the perception of and, really, what clinical psychology is."

I think this very good point is often missed in these conversations.
 
WisNeuro said:
People that come here are adults, they should be able to wade through a variety of comments and find meaningful information within and between. Sometimes bad decisions need to be called out as such. Too often we deliver feedback in a way that seeks to validate/give false equivalence to each viewpoint. That's stupid, and it makes us look stupid as a profession. I doubt we'll ever come to an agreement on this as it gets hashed out every few months, with people falling fairly even on both sides. In the end, though, those speaking bluntly, are not really troubled, and thus have no real desire or impetus to change.
Click to expand...

They could try an experiment in which they go to one of the other SDN forums and say something objectively incorrect, and measure the reactions. The statements here are generally tame.

I say on here pretty much what I say to students. If I ask a student a question, and they give an answer, and then I ask them why they think that, and they say "ummmmm" they know to expect a response of "You should probably know why you think something before you say it." Shockingly, this did not result in psychic trauma and I've found that students tend to like being taught as though they are adults capable of complex thought and self-correction.

If you think that kind of bluntness means someone is a terrible addition to the field, go ahead and look up my CV's awards section to see the mentorship awards, and check my teaching evals online. I'm not anonymous on here, and those are public.
 
I think we'll just have to agree to disagree, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be called out when it happens. As adults, people can wade through the facts and opinions and determine their best course without needing to be talked down to, and it sounds like for some people in here, they feel that condescension is the only way they can get their point across when they disagree with others, particularly if they feel strongly about the topic, I've noticed. People will come to their own conclusions about the "badness" of the decisions once they see the facts/opinions presented and they don't confirm whatever they hoped the answers would.

Of course patronizing people aren't troubled by their own actions, because there's a lack of openness by some to taking in any real feedback, regardless of how the request/argument is presented (and even when evidence is presented that patronizing language is overwhelmingly perceived negatively by others). Even when a respectful request for tact is presented in a non-patronizing and self-reflective way (as I have done prior), it gets ignored.
By the line of argument presented earlier, to make my point I should patronize the patronizers, but we see where that gets us....
 
C'est la vie. Just the circle of life here on SDN. I would strongly disagree about the "overwhelmingly" aspect. I wouldn't even call it a plurality. Confirmation bias and all.

Anyway, back to the original question at hand. Non accredited schools are bad. So called "shortcuts" that circumvent any meaningful clinical training are bad. Those of us who make admissions decisions generally agree that these things are bad and do not accept these backgrounds in our programs. Ta-Da!
 
Psycycle said:
I do agree that perhaps some things could be said in a way they would more likely be heard...
Click to expand...

I don't wholly disagree with you. My opinions are sort of:

A. Education
1) It is my opinion that many people seeking a doctoral education in psychology have social support.
2) It is doubtful that the social support knows what is required for PhD/PsyD admission and education.
3) There are many old psychologists who do not know how the field has changed.
4) This can lead to well meaning, but incorrect advice.
5) Given that resources are finite (e.g., time, money, cognitive abilities, etc) at some point in the educational process, one must give up one thing to get the education one desires.
5) There are many unethical programs out there that are preying upon those are acting upon the social support of 2 and 3 that tell students there is no need to give up 5.
6) This can lead to personal financial difficulties and poor professional outcomes. Which could have been avoided if someone gave direct advice like.
7) It is difficult to balance being kind by helping someone avoid a life altering error with social niceties. I equate this with having a friend asking you if they should ask their awful significant other to marry them. Is it nicer to tell them "don't do it!" so they can be happier long term, or is it nicer to avoid the discomfort and tell them to do it?

B. Practice
1) In the profession, there is both an evidence base and a research base.
2) It is important to state how one is basing their opinion.
3) Professionals owe each other the courtesy of outlining how they arrived at their opinion. Some do, some do not.
4) Unfortunately, it is significantly easier to make opinions without having a significant background.
5) At least in diagnosis, there are disorders which have life altering courses. Knowing the life expectancy of various dementias, the quality of life outcomes in bipolar disorder, how disability is professionally determined, what the courts means by X, etc all take significant time and effort to learn. Having that knowledge should inform how a clinician to interpret subjective reports and data. Many do not because it is easier not to.
6) Those that practice without obtaining the necessary education have very clear opportunity to negatively impact others. They are doing so by being lazy, which arguably means because negatively impacting others is better for them.
7) If observed, challenging individuals who one believes is acting without the requisite information, will provoke a justification which may lead to a conversation where at least one party learns something new, will provoke a reaction which indicates that the reasoning behind their ideas is baseless or not present at all.

erg923 said:
It's ineffective an unrealistic to pretend that we are in a therapy room all the time when we talk to our students and peers.
Click to expand...

There are other areas of practice. In a court room, being indirect is not helpful.


foreverbull said:
I think we'll just have to agree to disagree, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be called out when it happens. As adults, people can wade through the facts and opinions and determine their best course without needing to be talked down to, and it sounds like for some people in here, they feel that condescension is the only way they can get their point across when they disagree with others, particularly if they feel strongly about the topic, I've noticed. People will come to their own conclusions about the "badness" of the decisions once they see the facts/opinions presented and they don't confirm whatever they hoped the answers would.

Of course patronizing people aren't troubled by their own actions, because there's a lack of openness by some to taking in any real feedback, regardless of how the request/argument is presented (and even when evidence is presented that patronizing language is overwhelmingly perceived negatively by others). Even when a respectful request for tact is presented in a non-patronizing and self-reflective way (as I have done prior), it gets ignored.
By the line of argument presented earlier, to make my point I should patronize the patronizers, but we see where that gets us....
Click to expand...

I think this is passive aggressive. I would argue being passive aggressive is patronizing.
 
PSYDR said:
I think this is passive aggressive. I would argue being passive aggressive is patronizing.
Click to expand...

Oh?

Semantics aside, as I said, even when a respectful request for tact is presented in a non-patronizing and self-reflective way (as I have done prior), it gets ignored. Directness is not the same as condescension, and I'm uncertain as to why it's equated as such here.
 
foreverbull said:
Oh?

Semantics aside, as I said, even when a respectful request for tact is presented in a non-patronizing and self-reflective way (as I have done prior), it gets ignored. Directness is not the same as condescension, and I'm uncertain as to why it's equated as such here.
Click to expand...

So when you are passive aggressive, it's caused by others? And being passive aggressive isn't condescending or patronizing.
 
PSYDR said:
So when you are passive aggressive, it's caused by others? And being passive aggressive isn't condescending or patronizing.
Click to expand...

"Oh?" = how so, as in what was passive aggressive?
 
Last edited:
Since we've gotten far off-track from the OP, I'll just note that I've previously taken in feedback from some of the very folks who use more condescending language to be more thoughtful about my communication approaches in here, so I am asking for some reciprocity, here, and openness to reflect.

The fundamental misunderstanding that direct speech is condescending speech seems to be throwing people off, but at this point, I hope that there is an understanding of the difference--that directness doesn't have to be patronizing to make a point. I never took issue with people's desire to be direct, just the condescension part. While this forum is tame by some standards, I still find myself surprised at how quickly divisive/patronizing language pops up in some of the threads, and I don't understand why it's necessary. I would hope that folks in here would be open to some feedback without a snarky or dismissive response, which is the same I would expect from myself.
 
foreverbull said:
"Oh?" = how so, as in what was passive aggressive?
Click to expand...

At no point in any of this have you used names. You clearly have a problem with one or multiple people on here. At no point did you address them. Saying "some people" is passive aggressive. Which is ironic coming from someone who derides being direct. Call them/us out by name. Or are "some people" just not capable of communicating? (See what I did there? Not too nice. Feels patronizing).

You state that we can agree to disagree. And that adults can see various facts and opinions and make their own decisions. But that makes falls apart when you demand that others change.
 
Communication styles and preferences bring up core competency issues. Direct and indirect communication patterns (and high-context / low-context communication) are informed by culture, one style is not better than the other. They are simply different.

"Especially in the United States, criticism of indirect communication is common...many Americans find it self-evident that directness is logical and aligned with power whereas indirectness is akin to dishonesty...direct communicators expect and respect honesty and bluntness and can experience indirect speakers as passive aggressive, manipulative, weak, deceptive, vague, insincere, and untrustworthy." -- C. Joyce, U of Iowa, 2012

also see http://public.tepper.cmu.edu/jnh/businessCommunication.pdf

Indirect communication is more common with collectivist culture. IME, addressing concerns to a group rather than to an individual makes the message more likely to be considered by more people. So, although you (yes, you!) may believe this response is directed at you, it's really not. 🙂 My intention is to reach a broad audience. I think we can all benefit by reflecting on our communication style and considering how we're perceived by others.
 
So if I understand the OP's complaint, she went to a non-APA-accredited program and spent good money doing so, and got a degree that she now thinks is essentially nearly worthless. She cites her life circumstances (children, etc) as a reason for doing this. She now complains that her nearly-worthless degree is preventing her from getting certain jobs, and seems to believe that she should be granted the same privileges as those people who accumulated clinical experience both before and after the doctoral degree.

The fact of the matter is that she was apparently able to find a way to complete the 3000 hours of supervised experience that ALL of us did or will have to do, and she apparently can (unfortunately, IMO) take the licensing examinations and might even pass them if she has actually learned anything. Still, she complains about the effects of the lack of APA accreditation for her program.

I think she should be damn grateful that she is able to do the supervised experience and take the licensing exams at all - IMO, someone who has graduated from such an abominable program and has done so knowingly really should not be able to do these things.

There are two separate forces driving this situation - the continued existence of for-profit schools that provide convenient and hideously expensive programs that teach nothing, and the existence of people like the OP that want the degree, the license, and the opportunities, but don't want to put in the work. The combination of these two forces creates what is essentially a "perfect storm" that demeans and humiliates our profession.
 
msc545 said:
I think she should be damn grateful that she is able to do the supervised experience and take the licensing exams at all - IMO, someone who has graduated from such an abominable program and has done so knowingly really should not be able to do these things.

There are two separate forces driving this situation - the continued existence of for-profit schools that provide convenient and hideously expensive programs that teach nothing, and the existence of people like the OP that want the degree, the license, and the opportunities, but don't want to put in the work. The combination of these two forces creates what is essentially a "perfect storm" that demeans and humiliates our profession.
Click to expand...

I went back and read the OP. Seems to me that some around here are making a lot of assumptions about the original posters motivations. I just don't see where, in the OP, she talks about not wanting to "put in the work." She mentions that she would rather not repeat courses and do another dissertation (sounds reasonable to me- I don't want to do that either!), but it seems to be in the context of realizing that that may be the only option and asking us if that, in fact, is the case.

I think it behooves us all to remember that many students of non-accredited (APA or appropriate higher ed accreditation) programs have been swindled to believe that they are an appropriate option for people seeking advanced clinical degrees. These schools have actual marketing and recruitment departments set up to take advantage of prospective students (there's probably a post form someone in one of those departments in this very thread). They are allowed to do so legally, funded by government backed loans, under the guise of meaningles accreditation bodies. Caveat emptor and all that, but jeez, let's not forget that this scam is set up to prey on the neediest, and the neediest are often the most desperate.

As to the OP- If your goal is solely to get appropriate and comprehensive doctoral level education that leads not only to psychologist licensure eligibility, desirability as a reasonably compensated doctoral level clinician, and- most importantly- an ability to provide effective doctoral level clinical services to your future clients, you may have no other option than to start over. That sucks, but that's the way it is. Should you choose to pursue this route, do so wisely and seek to identify and avoid the pitfalls of behavior escalation. Depending on factors such as your age, mobility, family situation, economic and other support resourses, there may be no viable option that would allow you to meet this goal and you may need to pursue (not "settle for") other carreer options.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

oldschooliscool
What's with everyone saying "kiddos" now?
2
Replies
58
Views
6K
borne_before
borne_before
R. Matey
PhD/PsyD Ghosted by collaborators; Now what?
Replies
4
Views
3K
R. Matey
R. Matey
cjackord
Degree display
2
Replies
56
Views
5K
WisNeuro
WisNeuro
C
What to expect from healthcare lawyer (private practice)?
Replies
5
Views
1K
AcronymAllergy
AcronymAllergy
psych2869
What do you all think of this - especially VA providers.
Replies
15
Views
2K
Sanman
Sanman
Top