What is the role of psychologists in reducing injustice and increasing social justice?

[WisNeuro]

I think we're talking about different things.



I was responding to this quoted post. I don't think @IWillSurvive was talking about life-altering shame, losing their job, elected position, etc. I've been a participant in dozens of conversations in academic circles on the topic of race, racism, privilege, etc., that are uncomfortable and anxiety-provoking and I've been concerned about (and sometimes ended up) feeling shame. My experience is that the analogy I made above is very much in the same universe as these experiences.

I've been in both good, and bad, dialogues in these settings. In policy settings, they've gone better. I've been in very few productive academic dialogues in this area.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[IWillSurvive]

Unfortunately, just like some of the terms within the social justice framework, personal autonomy suffers from the same multiple definitions and hazy boundary difficulties. Many people who espouse pretty rigid "personal autonomy/freedom" values refuse to accept the consequences of their actions on other people.

Couldn't agree more...

 

[deleted480308]

You'll notice that the post you're quoting never said the Republican party is "entirely based on racism/hate." In fact, racism/hate is not mentioned in the post once. I wonder what it means that you read "the Republican party is RINO, and functions as an arm of the Trump campaign and little else," as meaning the same thing as "the entire thing is based on racism/hate."

That was a reference to this post (below) from earlier in the thread

There is an entire major political party platform built upon fear, hate, & straight up bigotry. The other major platforms are from Democrats, the Green Party, & Libertarians. It's that clear.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

That was a reference to this post (below) from earlier in the thread.

There is an entire major political party platform built upon fear, hate, & straight up bigotry. The other major platforms are from Democrats, the Green Party, & Libertarians. It's that clear.

I said that and I stand by it.

This may be OT and feel free to move it, but I thought it necessary to explain my post.

I was a moderate republican (fiscally conservative & socially moderate) until 2016 and saw it FIRST HAND in leadership and in supporters. I saw it for multiple decades across numerous states, but until 2015/2016 there were still pockets of ppl like me. I saw racism, bigotry, and straight up hateful rhetoric start to not only be acceptable but encouraged by local, state, & national reps...but it hit an entity different level w Trump's nomination.

The reason I stuck around until Trump's nomination was to try and change it from the inside. I tried to support candidates who didn't do those things (e.g. John Kasich for President). I spoke out against the hate and tried to focus on traditional GOP values like small gov't, individual rights, pro-biz, 2A, etc. I ran for positions within local and state GOP, won once and lost once. Ultimately, I realized the GOP I was trying to save had already fallen off the cliff and devolved into an org I didn't recognize the year leading up to Trump's nomination. It is now the party of hate, divisiveness, & corruption.

For anyone saying they aren't hateful....where are all of those GOP Senators & Reps speaking out against police brutality? Marching with protesters? Acknowledging the systemic racism built into our country and court system?

*Crickets*

 

[foreverbull]

When it comes to social justice and other hot topics, I understand that some folks want to have the opportunity to engage in a good faith discussion and will have differing opinions, but I’ve been in this forum for years and have seen patterns emerge
of some folks who like to speak up on controversial topics but there’s very little openness to persuasion or self-reflection even when I make the language gentle, kind, use “I” statements, bring in research, and all in all, make it very palatable. We’re not talking yelling at each other in all caps or name-calling here. That’s when I realize that some folks don’t actually want to engage in a good faith conversation or think more deeply about the issue, and instead, just want to be an opposing opinion and keep it abstract and philosophical. When I bring it down to the individual level, there’s silence sometimes, and I think that’s a good indication that some folks prefer to intellectualize these topics and keep them philosophical in a way that isn’t threatening to them and doesn’t require examining one’s own biases and behaviors.

This is nothing new; this happens all the time in many arenas outside of our forum with usually more heated and angry language. And for the record, I do think people get too extreme about things at times without taking the time to understand context, etc. On the flip side, there are also people out there who deserve to be called out for hypocrisy when their words are incongruent with their actions or other words, etc.

It’s hard to have a good faith discussion about racism in a forum of folks supposedly educated about racism in graduate programs to some extent when some folks use the same deflections/tactics that we see white folks using in the broader culture, etc., just using slightly more technical language and talking points.

I don’t think these conversations are easy, and I often find myself exhausted after awhile, especially when a thoughtful and lengthy response is met with one or two dismissive sentences that miss the point of my posts (this has happened A LOT in the past). And I understand why others don’t speak up when I’m questioning whether there really is any receptivity there or I’m wasting my time with people just wanting to be contrary rather than have a good faith discussion.

 

[R. Matey]

I realize that some folks don’t actually want to engage in a good faith conversation or think more deeply about the issue, and instead, just want to be an opposing opinion and keep it abstract and philosophical. When I bring it down to the individual level, there’s silence sometimes, and I think that’s a good indication that some folks prefer to intellectualize these topics and keep them philosophical in a way that isn’t threatening to them and doesn’t require examining one’s own biases and behaviors.

Respectfully disagree. I read this part as "philosophical objections are essentially avoidance." My experience in these types of discussion is quite the opposite from what you're raising. When I bring up logical inconsistencies in arguments, I experience people being very unwilling to speak to my concerns or become very curious about the nuances of language being applied in context (e.g.: "what's the role of trauma in an otherwise privileged person?"). I've had many, many closed door conversations with people from all backgrounds who are infinitely frustrated by an inability to ask questions freely without being group shamed by those who adopt critical frameworks uncritically. Call me crazy, but this seems to diverge from the general spirit of getting a Ph.D., which is to be able to ask questions and criticize ideas on their merits and agreed upon methods alone.

That said, I can get on board with the general premise of what you're saying. Intellectualization as avoidance shows up regularly in therapy so it makes sense that process would show up in the general sphere of discourse. However, I worry that adopting the belief that "all philosophical objections are really avoidance" risks a reader developing a representative heuristic when reading an objection on philosophical grounds. I personally have been greatly challenged by the discourses on social justice occurring in graduate school. My view on social justice issues has shifted (I think for the better), and I've been able to develop a stronger understanding my own role in social justice advocacy. I appreciate my view being challenged on philosophical or empirical grounds, but I have the same expectations of others. To me, that is how discourse is done.

My main point is that there are probably uncharitable debaters on all sides of this issue. I personally want to do better if I've been dismissive or uncharitable. I also want the freedom to dialogue using the methods I was trained to use.

 

[foreverbull]

Respectfully disagree. I read this part as "philosophical objections are essentially avoidance." My experience in these types of discussion is quite the opposite from what you're raising. When I bring up logical inconsistencies in arguments, I experience people being very unwilling to speak to my concerns or become very curious about the nuances of language being applied in context (e.g.: "what's the role of trauma in an otherwise privileged person?"). I've had many, many closed door conversations with people from all backgrounds who are infinitely frustrated by an inability to ask questions freely without being group shamed by those who adopt critical frameworks uncritically. Call me crazy, but this seems to diverge from the general spirit of getting a Ph.D., which is to be able to ask questions and criticize ideas on their merits and agreed upon methods alone.

That said, I can get on board with the general premise of what you're saying. Intellectualization as avoidance shows up regularly in therapy so it makes sense that process would show up in the general sphere of discourse. However, I worry that adopting the belief that "all philosophical objections are really avoidance" risks a reader developing a representative heuristic when reading an objection on philosophical grounds. I personally have been greatly challenged by the discourses on social justice occurring in graduate school. My view on social justice issues has shifted (I think for the better), and I've been able to develop a stronger understanding my own role in social justice advocacy. I appreciate my view being challenged on philosophical or empirical grounds, but I have the same expectations of others. To me, that is how discourse is done.

I see what you’re saying and don’t see this in extremes—I support critical thinking, so I will clarify a bit further to make sure my point isn’t misunderstood: I don’t see philosophical discussions as inherently deflective or problematic. That said, they CAN be used/misused to intellectualize as a deflection at times when folks are not discussing issues in good faith, as I mentioned. I don’t see abstractions and philosophical debates as problematic until it starts to appear as though the reason for maintaining a very physiological stance and dismissing more individual/practical level discussion is that the debater has zero interest in openness to deeper discussion or self-reflection and is debating just to debate. And I was suggesting that this does happen in here at times, not always, but at times, and when it does, it is very frustrating.

I have worked on my debate skills in here and taken in feedback from others, and have found it useful. On the flip side, I’ve seen some show very little openness to the same in these kinds of discussions. I’m purposely avoiding using extreme language or generalizations so that folks will not interpret this in an extreme manner.

 

[beginner2011]

My view on social justice issues has shifted (I think for the better), and I've been able to develop a stronger understanding my own role in social justice advocacy. I appreciate my view being challenged on philosophical or empirical grounds, but I have the same expectations of others. To me, that is how discourse is done.

Thanks for taking the time to lay out your concerns. I would honestly love to hear more about what you understand your role to be in social justice advocacy. I think it would be extremely valuable for all of us to reflect on this and share about our beliefs and actions in this area. That is originally why I started this thread, after all!

 

[R. Matey]

Thanks for taking the time to lay out your concerns. I would honestly love to hear more about what you understand your role to be in social justice advocacy. I think it would be extremely valuable for all of us to reflect on this and share about our beliefs and actions in this area. That is originally why I started this thread, after all!

As a psychologist, I see my role in social justice to use psychological science to investigate and intervene in areas of structural or implicit inequality. Justice is the organizing ethic while research provides evidence of injustice and consequently informs intervention. I want to give specific examples from my own research, but I worry that it would be too identifying. I will just say that I've been engaged in this kind of research and intervention throughout graduate school. As a citizen, I tend to agree the most with John Rawls.

 

[deleted480308]

I said that and I stand by it.

This may be OT and feel free to move it, but I thought it necessary to explain my post.

I was a moderate republican (fiscally conservative & socially moderate) until 2016 and saw it FIRST HAND in leadership and in supporters. I saw it for multiple decades across numerous states, but until 2015/2016 there were still pockets of ppl like me. I saw racism, bigotry, and straight up hateful rhetoric start to not only be acceptable but encouraged by local, state, & national reps...but it hit an entity different level w Trump's nomination.

The reason I stuck around until Trump's nomination was to try and change it from the inside. I tried to support candidates who didn't do those things (e.g. John Kasich for President). I spoke out against the hate and tried to focus on traditional GOP values like small gov't, individual rights, pro-biz, 2A, etc. I ran for positions within local and state GOP, won once and lost once. Ultimately, I realized the GOP I was trying to save had already fallen off the cliff and devolved into an org I didn't recognize the year leading up to Trump's nomination. It is now the party of hate, divisiveness, & corruption.

For anyone saying they aren't hateful....where are all of those GOP Senators & Reps speaking out against police brutality? Marching with protesters? Acknowledging the systemic racism built into our country and court system?

*Crickets*

We were clearly around different republicans.

I also think there is plenty of room to agree 100% that floyd was murdered and not buy into the systemic racism accusations (or more specifically some of the proposed “solutions”)

 

[beginner2011]

We were clearly around different republicans.

I also think there is plenty of room to agree 100% that floyd was murdered and not buy into the systemic racism accusations (or more specifically some of the proposed “solutions”)

The cognitive dissonance is strong with this one.

It seems like anyone who is actively affiliated with the Republican party at this point has consciously or not decided that they're going down with the ship. Hell, I have a relative who has been registered Republican for over 50 years, has never voted Democrat on a federal election in his entire life, and who is now calling Trump and the Republican party corrupt liars while he protests for racial justice in the streets. I can't help but see traditional Republicans who are on board with the current party as having lost the plot.

 

[deleted480308]

The cognitive dissonance is strong with this one.

It seems like anyone who is actively affiliated with the Republican party at this point has consciously or not decided that they're going down with the ship. Hell, I have a relative who has been registered Republican for over 50 years, has never voted Democrat on a federal election in his entire life, and who is now calling Trump and the Republican party corrupt liars while he protests for racial justice in the streets. I can't help but see traditional Republicans who are on board with the current party as having lost the plot.

I didn’t vote for trump so I’m not sure what to tell you

are you actually trying to say those two beliefs I mentioned can’t coexist?

 

[beginner2011]

I didn’t vote for trump so I’m not sure what to tell you

are you actually trying to say those two beliefs I mentioned can’t coexist?

I was implying that your statement about being around diff republicans is a response to the dissonance between thinking current Republicans are sane and what you read in T4C's post (and probably recognize in your own private experience).

In my opinion, you can make the same argument with Democrats with many of their representatives loudly espousing the perspectives laid out on cpusa.org. Most dems I know who aren’t basically communists, cast that off as fringe. But Bernie Sanders almost won the nomination I twice. Only difference between republicans and democrats on that one is that the democrats consolidated behind Biden to stop Bernie. And kasich just stubbornly hung in their through the bitter end.

you’ve got a lot of people who would like, in my opinion a degree of fiscal conservatism and a degree of social liberalism. Those people exist in both parties.

I'm surprised to see you say that you can't discriminate between Trump and Democrats in terms of magnitude of threat to functional democracy.

 

[deleted480308]

I was implying that your statement about being around diff republicans is a response to the dissonance between thinking current Republicans are sane and what you read in T4C's post (and probably recognize in your own private experience).

A huge amount of the folks I knew active in the party were genuinely nice people, so yeah, if that poster only knew hateful rage monsters then yeah.....they knew different republicans than I did

 

[beginner2011]

A huge amount of the folks I knew active in the party were genuinely nice people, so yeah, if that poster only knew hateful rage monsters then yeah.....they knew different republicans than I did

Southern charm has been a thing for hundreds of years, dating back to long before lynching people of color started to become less frequent in the south. It's possible for a person to be really nice in 99% of contexts while also advocating/espousing hateful and bigoted ideology.

 

[IWillSurvive]

You'll notice that the post you're quoting never said the Republican party is "entirely based on racism/hate." In fact, racism/hate is not mentioned in the post once. I wonder what it means that you read "the Republican party is RINO, and functions as an arm of the Trump campaign and little else," as meaning the same thing as "the entire thing is based on racism/hate."


Perhaps there is some value to people who have privilege based on systemic racism/sexism/etc. having to be thoughtful about what sort of discourse/language we engage in -- or face negative social consequences?

It's unclear to me what you're saying. You're invited to speak more plainly -- this is anonymous forum, after all.

Personally, I would hope that no one is prioritizing patient 'consciousness raising' above good patient care. That's a good way to undermine the credibility of our profession, harm vulnerable individuals, abuse your power, and risk losing your license to practice. I don't believe anyone is advocating for that, though. I understand the tension, and also I would hope that no one is confused about what is appropriate in our role as a psychotherapy provider when tension of this sort arises.

Perhaps there is some value to people who have privilege based on systemic racism/sexism/etc. having to be thoughtful about what sort of discourse/language we engage in -- or face negative social consequences?

I don't think I was implying there wasn't value in this, and I like to think I am thoughtful about my language/discourse. Even so, this has at times been my personal experience.

It's unclear to me what you're saying. You're invited to speak more plainly -- this is anonymous forum, after all.

Low SES, religion, and disability are a few that in my experience do not seem to have garnered equal attention in the academic conversations I have had. No academic program is the same but again, this is some of my experience.

Personally, I would hope that no one is prioritizing patient 'consciousness raising' above good patient care. That's a good way to undermine the credibility of our profession, harm vulnerable individuals, abuse your power, and risk losing your license to practice. I don't believe anyone is advocating for that, though. I understand the tension, and also I would hope that no one is confused about what is appropriate in our role as a psychotherapy provider when tension of this sort arises.

Not sure how to respond to this...I think there are a lot of gray areas, but maybe we are understanding the term 'consciousness raising' in different ways. I think many psychotherapists are attempting to figure out how they might use knowledge of social justice obtained through research in practical ways to support individuals who are victims of systems of oppression and prevent oneself from silently colluding with privilege, etc.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Southern charm has been a thing for hundreds of years, dating back to long before lynching people of color started to become less frequent in the south. It's possible for a person to be really nice in 99% of contexts while also advocating/espousing hateful and bigoted ideology.

This. All of my political involvement has been in Southern & Midwestern states...often quite contentious states. It was always "we are all nice people" and then they would say and do horrible things. I would often bring up the clear contrast and I was told "...it's politics". I can't identify exactly when, but it shifted to "We win, they lose! Suck it!" and everything became really personal and mean spirited. I thrived in the corp world and saw some bad stuff I used for comparison, but it was nothing like what I saw in state politics.

I guess a person sees what they want to see. All I could see in the end was hate and bigotry, which were things I did not want to associate with nor support. I saw it at my very conservative country club too, which I also left. Now I'm a (Warren) Progressive for purely social reasons....and the fiscal decisions in a mainstream Dem platform is still a challenge for me to accept.

 

[deleted480308]

Southern charm has been a thing for hundreds of years, dating back to long before lynching people of color started to become less frequent in the south. It's possible for a person to be really nice in 99% of contexts while also advocating/espousing hateful and bigoted ideology.

Except I was there when they talked politics and ideology, they weren’t hateful or bigoted

again, maybe y’all met different people than I did

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I'd suggest you consider going to Dem political events and getting involved at the same level you were with republicans.

I've seen some pretty gross stories from both sides. Politics are super dirty. Third party, for the win.

You are likely correct.

I've been recruited twice to run for seats (1 city and 1 county), but the timing wasn't right for me personally. I thought I'd eventually run, but now I want nothing to do with either party.

 

[beginner2011]

Except I was there when they talked politics and ideology, they weren’t hateful or bigoted

again, maybe y’all met different people than I did

It's also possible that your perception of hateful and bigoted is different than T4C.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Except I was there when they talked politics and ideology, they weren’t hateful or bigoted

again, maybe y’all met different people than I did

I found that people often don't say "the quiet part" out loud, but now...more do.

Much of my political work was not the traditional work of door knocking, phone banking, etc. I was more behind the scenes and mostly helped make introductions and connections through my social circles. Get a couple scotches in and then you really see where people are at politically. I did a lot of in-home fundraisers and golf fundraisers...so alcohol and opinions flowed more freely.

 

[deleted480308]

It's also possible that your perception of hateful and bigoted is different than T4C.

I found that people often don't say "the quiet part" out loud, but now...more do.

Much of my political work was not the traditional work of door knocking, phone banking, etc. I was more behind the scenes and mostly helped make introductions and connections through my social circles. Get a couple scotches in and then you really see where people are at politically. I did a lot of in-home fundraisers and golf fundraisers...so alcohol and opinions flowed more freely.

Acknowledging we might not actually be talking about the same things here...specifically what policy or opinion were you hearing that you think is the backbone of the party?

 

[Justanothergrad]

A bit of a turn, but

READ: Historic Supreme Court ruling says federal law protects LGBTQ workers | CNN Politics

Federal civil rights law protects gay, lesbian and transgender workers, the Supreme Court ruled Monday.

www.cnn.com

Taking psychological science to the high court

APA has filed a 'friend of the court' brief in three LGBT employment discrimination cases now before the U.S. Supreme Court.

www.apa.org

.

This is just one reason why psychologists have a role in reducing injustice and increasing social justice.

 

[Sanman]

A bit of a turn, but

READ: Historic Supreme Court ruling says federal law protects LGBTQ workers | CNN Politics

Federal civil rights law protects gay, lesbian and transgender workers, the Supreme Court ruled Monday.

www.cnn.com

Taking psychological science to the high court

APA has filed a 'friend of the court' brief in three LGBT employment discrimination cases now before the U.S. Supreme Court.

www.apa.org

.

This is just one reason why psychologists have a role in reducing injustice and increasing social justice.

I think that this is an admirable cause and one that I am happy was ultimately decided in favor of LBGTQ individuals. However,given the recent thread on the APA downsizing and running out of funds, I do wonder how much money went to such a cause that could have gone to issues that more directly impact psychologists and their ability to make a living.

 

[Justanothergrad]

I think that this is an admirable cause and one that I am happy was ultimately decided in favor of LBGTQ individuals. However,given the recent thread on the APA downsizing and running out of funds, I do wonder how much money went to such a cause that could have gone to issues that more directly impact psychologists and their ability to make a living.

If we limit the scope of our contributions to only that which increases our salary, we limit our relevance. I'm skeptical that the fluff in APA finances is such that the fat can't be trimmed while keeping this very fine contribution to knowledge of human science. I don't think we can do social science and absolve ourselves of the responsibility to disseminate that knowledge in the most impactful and meaningful ways.

 

[Sanman]

If we limit the scope of our contributions to only that which increases our salary, we limit our relevance. I'm skeptical that the fluff in APA finances is such that the fat can't be trimmed while keeping this very fine contribution to knowledge of human science. I don't think we can do social science and absolve ourselves of the responsibility to disseminate that knowledge in the most impactful and meaningful ways.

I'm honestly not sure how much fat there is to be trimmed. I am not suggesting that we only limit ourselves to contributions which increase salary. However, APA seems to be much better at these contributions than it does in protecting our practice and improving our ability to make a living. Without that, there will be no APA in the future to make these contributions.

To put it another way, I contribute to a number of charities. However, I only do so after ensuring that the my needs and those of my family are met. It sometimes feels like we are contributing to charity at the expense of our own needs.

 

[WisNeuro]

I think that this is an admirable cause and one that I am happy was ultimately decided in favor of LBGTQ individuals. However,given the recent thread on the APA downsizing and running out of funds, I do wonder how much money went to such a cause that could have gone to issues that more directly impact psychologists and their ability to make a living.

Filing amicus briefs are not very time consuming or resource draining on the legislative side of things. We do similar things regularly within the state. Additionally, I am more than fine with APA taking this stance as it directly pertains to rights of its members in employment settings, and those we serve as unemployment and employment discrimination are huge risk factors in MH disorders. This one is in our wheelhouse as psychologists both in research and in practice. Minimal effort by APA needed, pretty big rewards, I agree with JAG

 

[WisNeuro]

I'm honestly not sure how much fat there is to be trimmed. I am not suggesting that we only limit ourselves to contributions which increase salary. However, APA seems to be much better at these contributions than it does in protecting our practice and improving our ability to make a living. Without that, there will be no APA in the future to make these contributions.

To put it another way, I contribute to a number of charities. However, I only do so after ensuring that the my needs and those of my family are met. It sometimes feels like we are contributing to charity at the expense of our own needs.

If we're talking time and resources, I guarantee you that the time spent on the amicus brief was a tiny sliver of a fraction compared to say, the time that Puente and Pliskin (among others) spent with CMS around the last round of CMS/CPT changes. We were sitting at 30%+ reductions in reimbursements before they and APA were involved. The whole "APA spends too much time and money on social justice and not enough on the practice of psychology" is simply a false narrative. They are still spending the lion's share of their time on reimbursement and scope issues. They're just doing it with dwindling resources. And, if anything, concentrating more on SJ issues is probably a smart monetary move for them, as it will draw in more ECPs presumably. Mid and late career people seem to have already decided what they want to believe, with or without corroborating evidence.

 

[WisNeuro]

As another quick example, one of our fairly prominent posters on here, was part of a multi-organizational effort (APA, AACN, NAN, DIV 40) who, along with about 10 other experts created a lengthy document about reopening procedures based on best evidence. These are the things that are having considerable time spent constructing. These are the things that are being done, but they're not things you'll see in the lay news cycle, so people don't think about it as much. Instead they see the things that spark selective outrage.

 

[Sanman]

If we're talking time and resources, I guarantee you that the time spent on the amicus brief was a tiny sliver of a fraction compared to say, the time that Puente and Pliskin (among others) spent with CMS around the last round of CMS/CPT changes. We were sitting at 30%+ reductions in reimbursements before they and APA were involved. The whole "APA spends too much time and money on social justice and not enough on the practice of psychology" is simply a false narrative. They are still spending the lion's share of their time on reimbursement and scope issues. They're just doing it with dwindling resources. And, if anything, concentrating more on SJ issues is probably a smart monetary move for them, as it will draw in more ECPs presumably. Mid and late career people seem to have already decided what they want to believe, with or without corroborating evidence.

It is not a question of time spent on CMS vs SJ issues outright or even whether they should ever be supported, but rather a question of how best to allocate apparently dwindling resources. I fully agree that I may be incorrect given that I do not get to see the inner workings of APA. Perhaps, APA needs to better engage with members on these fronts. What I do see is them asking me for money every year and focus on a number of issues that don't directly impact me as a clinician, while expecting a 7% reimbursement cut in CMS rates for 2021, and now layoffs at their organization. For all I know, they are doing everything correctly. However, the optics suck and do not fill me with confidence.

 

[WisNeuro]

I'm all about better communication and engagement, most organizations could do with some more of that. As for the other stuff, we are in constant contact with APA and other state psych associations, so we see the issues that are being worked on day to day. I can assure everyone that 90%+ of the e-mails I get are practice/reimbursement related. That's the bulk of work that is going on legislatively, at the state and federal levels. As for the reimbursement cuts, some of that is a direct result of dwindling resources. When the CMS rates come up for review, everyone is generally on the chopping block. That's when the lobbying and advocacy steps in. At least recently, psychologists do not pay in, and have fewer members than a lot of larger lobbying groups. Less money for lobbyists means less lobbying. We're a lazy, cheap bunch as a whole.

 

[Sanman]

I'm all about better communication and engagement, most organizations could do with some more of that. As for the other stuff, we are in constant contact with APA and other state psych associations, so we see the issues that are being worked on day to day. I can assure everyone that 90%+ of the e-mails I get are practice/reimbursement related. That's the bulk of work that is going on legislatively, at the state and federal levels. As for the reimbursement cuts, some of that is a direct result of dwindling resources. When the CMS rates come up for review, everyone is generally on the chopping block. That's when the lobbying and advocacy steps in. At least recently, psychologists do not pay in, and have fewer members than a lot of larger lobbying groups. Less money for lobbyists means less lobbying. We're a lazy, cheap bunch as a whole.

This becomes a chicken or an egg debate at some point, but the bolded is one view. The other side is that a 7% rate cut from something already not that high means belt tightening for psychologists and things like state and national association dues are on the chopping block before food, shelter, ever increasing student loans, or even tennis lessons for your kid. So, every dollar spent elsewhere that could have led to a smaller cut may be a waste. Or it might not have mattered and is better spent elsewhere. That can be up for healthy debate. However, referring to the people that pay the bills as cheap and lazy is equally as helpful as them calling members of APA and state psych associations out of touch and poor stewards of our funds.

 

[WisNeuro]

We all have our opinions, but at least from where I'm sitting and the orgs we work with, psychology lags behind. By and large, it's a profession that has people in it that want things to change, but very few of them want to actually do anything about it, monetarily or with sweat equity. I spend a lot of time and effort trying to change that, but I'm more pessimistic about its future than optimistic. I make good money relative to the field, but if the students and ECPs coming up now want any of that pie, they're going to have to get involved much more than they currently are.

 

[Sanman]

We all have our opinions, but at least from where I'm sitting and the orgs we work with, psychology lags behind. By and large, it's a profession that has people in it that want things to change, but very few of them want to actually do anything about it, monetarily or with sweat equity. I spend a lot of time and effort trying to change that, but I'm more pessimistic about its future than optimistic. I make good money relative to the field, but if the students and ECPs coming up now want any of that pie, they're going to have to get involved much more than they currently are.

I don't think that it is because we are cheap and lazy, it is because we sold the profession out at the highest level years ago and anyone smart enough to navigate the maze of the early career years pulls the ladder up behind them. It was not the early career folks or the grunts in the field that sanctioned for-profit schools with huge debt burdens, acted as faculty for them, fumbled the internship crisis, or continues to be too weak to fight ongoing cuts to reimbursement. The problem, in my eyes, is a lack of cohesiveness from the start that bifurcates the field. You have the academics that makes money off this training scheme and the practitioners that suffer on the other side of it. I used to work for a large company that, in many ways, exhibits many of the bad behaviors we caution early career folks to avoid. Poor compensation split, no psychologists in charge (just business folks), etc. Tony Puente was happy to take money from them to do a private CE training and I even got to meet him. I voted with my feet to leave that job and look for better options. How many leaders in the field were happy to take the large paycheck and not worry about the consequences to the field? Mind you, I have nothing against Tony Puente personally, but lets not say that those that make money off of training us have the same concerns as the grunt in the field.

 

[WisNeuro]

Lot to unpack in there, some true, some manufactured. I agree that APA should have taken a tougher stance with accreditation, and done what they could to limit subpar training from diploma mills. As for the debt, that's on the students as far as I'm concerned. Interest is not a hard concept to understand as a college graduate. There was never a real internship crisis, just diploma mill students struggling to get an internship.

I don't know too many academics "making money off this scheme." Academics are probably harder hit than clinicians in terms of fewer jobs to go around, particularly TT, and declining salaries if they can get jobs in the first place. As for paid CE spots, I fail to see how that contributes to poor training. I know of very few people who have put in as much time, and their own money, to the field than Puente. The fact that he once got paid for a CE somewhere is just a disingenuous irrelevancy to this debate. Next time you get to meet him, I'd encourage you to speak with him, you may learn that he has a lot of the same concerns about the field as psychologists at all levels.

 

[Sanman]

Lot to unpack in there, some true, some manufactured. I agree that APA should have taken a tougher stance with accreditation, and done what they could to limit subpar training from diploma mills. As for the debt, that's on the students as far as I'm concerned. Interest is not a hard concept to understand as a college graduate. There was never a real internship crisis, just diploma mill students struggling to get an internship.

I don't know too many academics "making money off this scheme." Academics are probably harder hit than clinicians in terms of fewer jobs to go around, particularly TT, and declining salaries if they can get jobs in the first place. As for paid CE spots, I fail to see how that contributes to poor training. I know of very few people who have put in as much time, and their own money, to the field than Puente. The fact that he once got paid for a CE somewhere is just a disingenuous irrelevancy to this debate. Next time you get to meet him, I'd encourage you to speak with him, you may learn that he has a lot of the same concerns about the field as psychologists at all levels.

If you accredit the programs, allow for people to be taken advantage of with loans, let them struggle to through internship, and then wonder why they might not be contributing to APA, that is shooting yourself in the foot long-term. It may be the fault of the individual 21-28 yr old for making those choices, but the adults in the room should be steering the ship for the long-term.

Academics make money off of training, teaching, etc. The point being not that they are bad people,but that their interests lie elsewhere. Is a large for-profit school good for the practitioners with debt? No. It is good for the faculty that have a job? Yes. Different interests. This is part of a larger issue with academia. The number of graduate students being trained is much higher than the jobs available in all fields. The people that guided young folks into grad school, were not necessarily looking out for their interests. My point about Tony is simply what may be good for him personally or others in his position may not be good for the field as a whole. Part of the field having a diverse set of interests and jobs is that we cannot always agree on the best course of action as a group. What is good for some people is bad for others. In completely academic or professional fields, this is not as much the case.

 

[DynamicDidactic]

If you accredit the programs, allow for people to be taken advantage of with loans, let them struggle to through internship,

I always wonder why APA is so open to allowing large cohort programs (or, at least, was open to it). My thinking is they wanted more psychologists. Even if they netted less members, the more newly minted doctorates the more potential for members/dues.

 

[WisNeuro]

If you accredit the programs, allow for people to be taken advantage of with loans, let them struggle to through internship, and then wonder why they might not be contributing to APA, that is shooting yourself in the foot long-term. It may be the fault of the individual 21-28 yr old for making those choices, but the adults in the room should be steering the ship for the long-term.

Academics make money off of training, teaching, etc. The point being not that they are bad people,but that their interests lie elsewhere. Is a large for-profit school good for the practitioners with debt? No. It is good for the faculty that have a job? Yes. Different interests. This is part of a larger issue with academia. The number of graduate students being trained is much higher than the jobs available in all fields. The people that guided young folks into grad school, were not necessarily looking out for their interests. My point about Tony is simply what may be good for him personally or others in his position may not be good for the field as a whole. Part of the field having a diverse set of interests and jobs is that we cannot always agree on the best course of action as a group. What is good for some people is bad for others. In completely academic or professional fields, this is not as much the case.

People allow themselves to be taken advantage of by loans for graduate education. Our orgs could definitely do more to dissuade that, unfortunately, they also run into restriction of practice laws that heavily favor the mills. So, they could fight a slew of costly lawsuits to combat that, though they'd probably have lost big taking into account the environment the past decade and lack of regulation in this sector. Honestly, at the time, it would have been a terrible battle to wage, they would likely be in even worse financial straits than they are now, and would likely have accomplished nothing as there was no appetite for holding for profit institutions accountable until very recently.

As for Tony, he is not just an academic. He's always been an academic that maintains a private practice. So, as for having a pulse on what affects a variety in the field, he knows better than most.

 

[WisNeuro]

I always wonder why APA is so open to allowing large cohort programs (or, at least, was open to it). My thinking is they wanted more psychologists. Even if they netted less members, the more newly minted doctorates the more potential for members/dues.

There's being open to it, and there is the issue that they can't restrict class sizes without a slew of legal challenges. People look at this too simplistically. Many more issues at play.

 

[BuckeyeLove]

No. It is good for the faculty that have a job? Yes.

This may be a naïve question, but were those diploma mill school faculty gigs very high paying? Like, psychologists took the jobs likely with cognitive dissonance surrounding doing so? (big paycheck but knowing deep down its bad for the field?)

 

[WisNeuro]

This may be a naïve question, but were those diploma mill school faculty gigs very high paying? Like, psychologists took the jobs likely with cognitive dissonance surrounding doing so? (big paycheck but knowing deep down its bad for the field?)

I can only speak for our local recently shuttered mill, one of the Argosy schools, in saying that the pay was pretty dismal. They were always hiring, and the faculty consisted mostly of grads from that same program who left when they found higher paying work. Which was pretty quickly.

 

[Sanman]

There's being open to it, and there is the issue that they can't restrict class sizes without a slew of legal challenges. People look at this too simplistically. Many more issues at play.

No, but the accreditation standards could be tighter and lead to more uniform performance across programs. The early career pipeline could be smoother too. Physicians do a much better job of this in training. They control the number of students, the internship and residency spots available, and ensure a smoother transition all the way into that first job. It would not fix all the debt issues, but it would help the situation.

 

[Sanman]

This may be a naïve question, but were those diploma mill school faculty gigs very high paying? Like, psychologists took the jobs likely with cognitive dissonance surrounding doing so? (big paycheck but knowing deep down its bad for the field?)

Early on I know Nicholas Cummings was involved in California School of Professional Psychology and some other big names were too. Currently, I feel like any academic job is a "good job" the way the market is.

 

[WisNeuro]

Early on I know Nicholas Cummings was involved in California School of Professional Psychology and some other big names were too. Currently, I feel like any academic job is a "good job" the way the market is.

Don't know about this, a ton of the jobs coming out academically are for adjunct or lecturer type positions. These do not pay well, especially for the time involved. There are definitely some good jobs out there, but these are mostly for people pulling in decent grant money, and they are the minority of job postings. Academia isn't the cushy cash cow it was decades ago.

 

[Sanman]

Don't know about this, a ton of the jobs coming out academically are for adjunct or lecturer type positions. These do not pay well, especially for the time involved. There are definitely some good jobs out there, but these are mostly for people pulling in decent grant money, and they are the minority of job postings. Academia isn't the cushy cash cow it was decades ago.

There are definitely some of those and I agree the part-time/ per diem gigs are not good. I was referring more to permanent faculty positions that would not exist without the schools existing. Not sure how they rank in terms of pay compared to other schools, but it certainly beats the adjunct circuit.

 

[WisNeuro]

There are definitely some of those and I agree the part-time/ per diem gigs are not good. I was referring more to permanent faculty positions that would not exist without the schools existing. Not sure how they rank in terms of pay compared to other schools, but it certainly beats the adjunct circuit.

It does, but schools are increasingly limiting TT type positions and increasing adjunct positions. So, these jobs were already dwindling. Factor in dwindling enrollment and slowed population growth, and these jobs will continue to decline at a rapid pace. They are not plentiful, and are becoming even less so.

 

[beginner2011]

It does, but schools are increasingly limiting TT type positions and increasing adjunct positions. So, these jobs were already dwindling. Factor in dwindling enrollment and slowed population growth, and these jobs will continue to decline at a rapid pace. They are not plentiful, and are becoming even less so.

The impression I have generally is that academic positions (research or teaching) lead to vastly inferior effort:income prospects on average, compared to clinical positions. I got pretty into relative estimation several months back (on internship now, so it's timely), and then checked my conclusions with several research/clinical supervisors for confirmation. It seems like each part of the house thinks the other side is getting all the perks, when the reality is probably more that because of the in-fighting (among other factors) the house is simply in disarray.

 

[WisNeuro]

The impression I have generally is that academic positions (research or teaching) lead to vastly inferior effort:income prospects on average, compared to clinical positions. I got pretty into relative estimation several months back (on internship now, so it's timely), and then checked my conclusions with several research/clinical supervisors for confirmation. It seems like each part of the house thinks the other side is getting all the perks, when the reality is probably more that because of the in-fighting (among other factors) the house is simply in disarray.

Generally speaking, yes. The top academic earners do very well, but they are a pretty small percentage of the academic job market. For the average psychologist, clinical would likely be the better performing salary-wise, on average.

 

[beginner2011]

Generally speaking, yes. The top academic earners do very well, but they are a pretty small percentage of the academic job market. For the average psychologist, clinical would likely be the better performing salary-wise, on average.

Just as the top academic earners do very well, so do the top clinical earners. I know of a (very small) number of ambitious private practitioners making in the 500k-1MM/year range who are <10y out from conferred degree.

 

[Sanman]

Just as the top academic earners do very well, so do the top clinical earners. I know of a (very small) number of ambitious private practitioners making in the 500k-1MM/year range who are <10y out from conferred degree.

I assume that they are largely business owners and not clinicians unless we are talking some small niches, care to enlighten us?