What is psycholgy??

[Therapist4Chnge]

This sounds kind of backwards. Why do you keep silent if people need feedback?

Just an FYI......that was a post from a few years ago, and since pscisi is no longer a member here, a response won't be forthcoming.

I'm the MOD in this forum, and you'll see I post all over the place.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[cara susanna]

Oh, good, I was like "Wait, we have another mod? Since when??"

 

[GradStudent87]

I noticed this thread and it is really interesting. I don't know if I'm in position to really say all that much as for one this thread was from two years ago and another I'm an undergraduate who has not dealt with all the experiences discussed in this thread. I am probably not in a great position to even comprehend everything said here let alone make comments on it.
Anyway from what i've read I think one of the main problems with psychologists vs lower level mental health workers is the general public At least from what i've seen/heard really does not care/appreciate research. This is not to say they don't read it on a day to day basis but when choosing a therapist I don't get the sense they really care whether the therapist uses empirically based methods and has a sound scientific foundation or whether the therapist mostly is guided by their own views/opinions. This may be one reason that clinical psychology in which such intensive research requirements are necessary may have a sort of disconnect with the laymen/the real world. I am by no means saying research is not extremely valuable and necessary to the field growing i'm just saying one possible rationale for why psychologists and MA/BA level workers may end up in similar job positions. Also insurance and political stuff is a big factor.
I for one know/think I want to eventually focus my life/career around practicing/psychotherapy. However I also believe it is my duty to at the very least understand/appreciate research if not eventually conduct some of my own. However I have spoken to people and said a certain technique works and has massive empirical support and they have said so it doesn't seem like it would work, the general public(again maybe i am generalizing from people I have known) just does not have the correct appreciation/understanding for research which to me is the main thing that seperates psychologists from lower level mental health workers. They want to be cured and get better, they don't have this huge desire to better understand themselves, they go to treatment wanting quick results, insurance companies want quick results. Psychology was not meant to deliver quick results necessarily but effective and long lasting ones. Again I have not been to graduate school so I do not know if the clinical training is vastly different for say becomming a MSW or a MHC compared to a PhD/PsyD. My indication is it's probably not that different(or depends where you go) but I really don't know.
I know it makes my decision complicated because I really have a desire to learn and want to become the best and most well educated therapist I can possibly become. However practically you can basically do almost the same therapeutic work with a masters degree(assuming your interests are not academia) as with a doctoral degree and considering the timing/costs it takes to go through a doctoral program and just to get into one you begin to wonder is it all even really worth it?
One other thing/problem i've noticed a little from this thread and even in my school is there is so much in fighting between psychologists. The main argument seems to be research vs. practice which somewhat contributes to PSYD vs. PhD. However the goal of good research is in my opinion anyway is to be used to understand and apply it to humans. The goal of good practice is to take what has been researched/found and apply it to helping humans whether it be individuals or society as a whole. If there was more coaperation and understanding between the two instead of so much bickering about which one was more valuable and more important, maybe I'm just one of those idealistic can't we just get along types and living in a fantasy world but I think more working together/understanding appreciation for each seperate role that different jobs bring to the table and less bickering within the field itself might help psychology keep up with other fields.

 

[Brad S]

I'm the MOD in this forum, and you'll see I post all over the place.

I've read a lot of your posts, I enjoy the content very much. I was hoping s/he was still around so I could receive a newb thrashing for my pretentiousness.

I guess another question might be, what would a person who wishes to address mental health issues want to do, and what knowledge would they want?

I don't know if anyone watches House, but I imagine that there isn't a hospital in all the land where every patient presents with levels of symptoms that could be a thousand different pathologies. I imagine that this fictional scenario of medicine is closer to the reality of clinical psychology, minus that satisfying "aha!" at the end of every House episode.

I'm certain that the delayed or non-present gratification in clinical psychology requires a deep inner desire to care for human beings. It seems essentially like a sacrifice of what most occupations offer- cut and dry, tangible results.

So, what's the big picture that I'm trying to wrap my mind around? Even clinical psychology is a nearly all-encompassing field who's raw material and final product are bordering on abstract and subjective. I don't mean this derogatorily, simply that clinical psychology is by its nature the most complex scientific pursuit.

Looking from my newb vantage point, though I'm sure I'm committing idealism, is that a field of our nature needs open communication between peers and non-peers (thanks SDN) as well as some willful suspension of politics.

In the realm of science, where concrete evidence earns respect, psychology seems to get short shrift (though admittedly I have heard most of it from religious friends who think the mind is the soul, one solitary object- and the brain is sort of a container for non-cognitive biological processes).

I think we all just need to openly state our purposes:
1. Put food on the table
2. Work for the welfare of individuals and society.

Beyond that, environmental circumstances dictate. As I say, I worry that I am not smart or disciplined enough to get a PhD, and I might need PhD study to learn myself some discipline. So if I'm just incapable, maybe my buck stops short of PhD, and I make the best of reality on reality's terms.

It seems like those of us in or around the field are some of the only people who understand why the field is important. So, maybe we develop ways to assert it's importance in the media.

YouTUBE is really picking up. Unfortunately, the first results are from an anti-psychology schill for $cientology who shall remain unnamed. There's no reason why that can't change. With everyone on the forum here's support voting up new, actual psych vids, we can bring our message to the forefront.

 

[cara susanna]

I've seen those videos. The comments are the most disturbing to me--I never knew so many people felt that way about medication and even psychotherapy.

 

[socialcog]

I'm a little surprised there hasn't been more robust discussion involving psychology and it's philosophical underpinnings. To me, psychology in many ways is an extension of innumberable themes written in philosophy. After reading Damasio and Ramachandran, it is easy to see that their empirical questions are deeply embedded in philosophy. How do emotions differ from feelings? What is the nature of the self? Ramachandran said, "....I do think there's a new way to study consciousness by treating it not as a philosophical, logical or conceptual issue, but rather as an empirical problem."


Anyone else expand on this?

 

[GradStudent87]

I'm a little surprised there hasn't been more robust discussion involving psychology and it's philosophical underpinnings. To me, psychology in many ways is an extension of innumberable themes written in philosophy. After reading Damasio and Ramachandran, it is easy to see that their empirical questions are deeply embedded in philosophy. How do emotions differ from feelings? What is the nature of the self? Ramachandran said, "....I do think there's a new way to study consciousness by treating it not as a philosophical, logical or conceptual issue, but rather as an empirical problem."


Anyone else expand on this?

In a sense I feel psychology is the scientific and applied version of philosophy. Theres more to it then that but that seems to be what it was founded on and a major overall theme

 

[Rivi]

Psychologists are very, very needed today. I think the problem is that the field is changing drastically, and our universities haven't changed the training to accommodate the change in the field. While the changes in the field may give the appearance that our field is shrinking, it is my opinion that this is not necessarily the case.

1. Forensics. Psychologists have the upper hand in this area over master's level clinicians, psychiatrists, etc. with assessments. I don't see that changing anytime soon. Don't forget that jails have become the new mental health treatment center. The largest inpatient psychiatric treatment center in the U.S. is a jail. More and more people are needed to determine if someone is not guilty by reason of insanity, etc. . The pay here is above average.

2. Neuropsychology. Neuropsychologists are in high demand, and will continue to be in high demand. Neuropsychological research is the new wave of growth in this field. The pay here is also above average.

In regards to practicing therapy and basic screening tests, the field is shrinking. Managed care will continue to contribute to that and there is not a lot that APA or anyone else can do about it IMO.

If you want to be in this field, you need to consider if your interests match up with the current direction our field is growing in. Get neuropsychology and forensic training and you will be in much higher demand.