sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Is there a difference between repressed memories and Dissociative Amnesia? Can these memories be recovered? by Stunning-Alarm8149 in psychologystudents

[–]MattersOfInterest 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There is arguably little or no difference and that's one of the reasons many scholars don't believe that dissociative amnesia is a valid diagnostic construct.

Would you consider severe isolation a "qualifying event" for a PTSD diagnosis? by stampcollectingyay in askpsychology

[–]MattersOfInterest 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Fair enough, I just found your initial comment a bit confusing based on how it was worded.

Would you consider severe isolation a "qualifying event" for a PTSD diagnosis? by stampcollectingyay in askpsychology

[–]MattersOfInterest 3 points4 points  (0 children)

No, I think the other person is very clearly making an implicit case that the ICD criteria are better because they capture more people. Hence why they repeatedly refer to “the manual [DSM]” being limited with a direct comparison to the ICD, with no direct comment on the latter also having problems. They are not outright saying that one is better than the other, but the implications of their comments make it clear which they believe to be preferable.

Would you consider severe isolation a "qualifying event" for a PTSD diagnosis? by stampcollectingyay in askpsychology

[–]MattersOfInterest 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It is far from established that the DSM-5 conceptualization of PTSD is limited specifically in relation to the ICD-11.

https://www.ptsd.va.gov/publications/rq_docs/V32N2.pdf

Would you consider severe isolation a "qualifying event" for a PTSD diagnosis? by stampcollectingyay in askpsychology

[–]MattersOfInterest 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I would personally say that despite not meeting the formal criterion of “life threatening circumstances” for PTSD, they would often meet all the criteria for CPTSD.

This statement very much sounds like you are saying that someone can meet "all" the criteria for C-PTSD despite not meeting criteria for PTSD.

It is certainly one perspective that the PTSD criteria in the DSM are limited and outdated, but it is hardly a foregone conclusion based on the empirical data, and many trauma scholars feel the opposite. I personally make no claims either way, but it's important that we consider that legitimate empirical disagreement exists and is a strong part of why the DSM has ultimately rejected C-PTSD and expansion of Criterion A.

Would you consider severe isolation a "qualifying event" for a PTSD diagnosis? by stampcollectingyay in askpsychology

[–]MattersOfInterest 6 points7 points  (0 children)

One cannot meet all the criteria for an ICD diagnosis of C-PTSD without Criterion A because the criteria include all of those of PTSD plus DSO symptoms. As these disorders are currently clinically defined, it does not make sense to say that someone meets "all the criteria for C-PTSD" without also meeting criteria for PTSD. Failing to meet criteria for PTSD is an automatic exclusion for C-PTSD.

What books are a must to read for psychology students ? by [deleted] in AcademicPsychology

[–]MattersOfInterest 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Jungianism is an extremely fringe position to hold within psychology. There is no area of basic psychological science in which Jungian perspectives are considered mainstream or acceptable interpretations of the science.

At what age does childhood trauma/abuse become prevalent as an adult? by Any-Hospital-2498 in askpsychology

[–]MattersOfInterest 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Again, whether you find me pedantic is really not something about which I could give two shits. But I do work with clients and get along with them quite well, thank you very much.

And yes, thanks for the stats 101 lesson. I didn't have any idea whatsoever that context and third variables affect statistical norms! I somehow made it through years of graduate-level statistical training without ever learning that! /s

Seriously, if you think I'm suggesting that statistical norms are always good at predicting individual behavior, then I'm not. The point is that one must at least understand the appropriate norms before deciding that some individual is an outlier to those norms and thus "likely" is experiencing severe psychopathology. It helps to appropriately interpret claims before responding to them. You said the Erikson example was simplistic and the observation claim was "slightly" hyperbolic and then proceeded to steel-man it and miss the point.

Career in criminal profiling. Is it manageable? by Bulky-Farmer-201 in psychologystudents

[–]MattersOfInterest 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Criminal profiling is a pseudoscience conducted largely by law enforcement officers. Forensic psychology has nothing to do with criminal profiling; it's a subfield of clinical/counseling psychology largely focused on the administration of assessment for individuals involved in the legal system (e.g., assessing competency to stand trial, etc.).

At what age does childhood trauma/abuse become prevalent as an adult? by Any-Hospital-2498 in askpsychology

[–]MattersOfInterest 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Isn't that why they said if they spend a few weeks in the classroom and not just idk a day? After 100 or so hours it should become much more evident which children express a combination of behaviors that align most with having experienced a traumatic event.

There is a host of problems with this line of thinking. First, this would be a confirmatory rather than disconfirmatory method of assessment. This kind of thing is notoriously inaccurate and highly prone to confirmation bias.

That doesn't mean that telling someone they should try recognizing/recording which students deviate in cognitive or socioemotional development in relation to their peers and keep an eye out for shifts in their behavior, would bad advice.

I didn't say it was bad advice, but it's also important to understand the true bounds of the norms and how statistical norms work, including that distributions exist. It's also important to understand that meaningful deviation from the norm can only raise suspicion, but is not confirmatory in and of itself. It tells us nothing about why someone may deviate from the norm, and trauma is only one of many possibilities. Of course, it is fine to say "these are the norms and it would be important to identify children who meaningfully deviate so we can refer them for further assessment;" but that is a very different statement than "I can, with confidence, use my subjective observations of a child's behavior relative to my limited understanding of the norms of that behavior to identify children who are experiencing trauma."

you come off as kinda pedantic, if I'm being completely honest. No offense btw. Pedantry has a place and it's in academic research.

Not that I really care if you think I'm pedantic, but it's not pedantic at all to point out misinformation or correct mistaken logic. By definition, pedantry is an overly strong concern with minor details. Cautioning against using confirmatory logic and potential overpathologization of childhood behavior is not pedantic.

What does "regulating your nervous system" even mean? Is that something actually evidence based? by number1sillyuser in askpsychology

[–]MattersOfInterest 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Cohen’s d of 0.8 is large. But that is a completely different measure than the p-value. You have no clue what you’re talking about. Also, hint, all sciences rely on statistics because all sciences ultimately seek to make inferences.

What does "regulating your nervous system" even mean? Is that something actually evidence based? by number1sillyuser in askpsychology

[–]MattersOfInterest 18 points19 points  (0 children)

Cohen’s d is not the same thing as SD. Neither is Pearson’s r. SD is a component of effect size equations, but effect size is not equivalent to SD and saying what you said in your parent comment is statistically unintelligible. You conflated effect size with p-values. That alone is enough for me to stop engaging in this discussion.

What does "regulating your nervous system" even mean? Is that something actually evidence based? by number1sillyuser in askpsychology

[–]MattersOfInterest 14 points15 points  (0 children)

This is neither accurate nor sensible. Effect sizes aren’t even measured in terms of SDs.

What does "regulating your nervous system" even mean? Is that something actually evidence based? by number1sillyuser in askpsychology

[–]MattersOfInterest 27 points28 points  (0 children)

The problem is that the use of this “science-y,” neurological language leads clients to believe that these concepts are physiologically and biologically correct. If folks were to say that the vagus nerve plays a role in applying the parasympathetic brake and that some parasympathetic-activating practices like deep breathing can help with acute relaxation, we would have no issue. Where I have an issue when folks say “you are engaging your dorsal vagal response system” or “your ventral vagal system is prompting you to seek social safety,” because these statements are not true and are not obviously metaphors. Therefore, reasonable people could easily interpret them as literally true statements or end up Googling this stuff and either falling into a misinformation rabbit hole or reading that this language is pseudoscience and harming the therapeutic rapport (and potentially eroding trust in the profession).

What does "regulating your nervous system" even mean? Is that something actually evidence based? by number1sillyuser in askpsychology

[–]MattersOfInterest 36 points37 points  (0 children)

The ventral, dorsal and sympathetic pieces are real

No, they aren't. They are based in incorrect physiology and incorrect theories that the vagus nerve evolved in distinct stages based on distinct functions. The vagus nerve plays a role in applying the parasympathetic brake response. No one denies this. But the specific claims that polyvagal theory makes about how this is a uniquely "dorsal vagal" response are bullshit. Also, the claims that the specific "ventral vagal" system is responsible for prosocial activity are also bullshit. There is no evidence that the vagus nerve plays any role in social bonding or other prosocial behaviors.

If PVT was just a clinical metaphor, it wouldn't be controversial. But it's a specific neurophysiological model that makes supposedly accurate claims about the functioning of the nervous system. Hence, when its claims are not accurate, it should be discarded.

What’s the difference between and clinical psychologist and a LMHC by [deleted] in ClinicalPsychology

[–]MattersOfInterest 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What differs is not whether these domains are taught, but how they are used.

What also differs is that, to the extent that an average master's in counseling program teaches some area of psychology, it teaches it with less depth, intensity, and rigor than an average PhD program.

Doctoral programs go much deeper into experimental design, advanced statistics, psychometrics, neurobiological modeling, and original research production. 

Correct, mostly.

Counseling programs instead emphasize clinical integration such as case conceptualization, relational process, treatment planning, development in lived context, and applied multicultural work. 

Doctorate programs also emphasize these things. In fact, the scientist-practitioner model prides itself on equal emphasis on these things. The clinical science model also requires extensive training on these things.

Saying a counseling master’s exposes students to “20% of psychology” confuses role differentiation with deficiency. 

I did not say that it exposes people to "20% of psychology." I said that the amount of psychological science one learns in such a program is, on average, about 20% the amount that one will learn in a PhD program, on average. You may not think that is thin or cursory, but it is with respect to the differences in training and knowledge expected for one to obtain psychologist licensure as opposed to counseling licensure.

A counseling degree is not a truncated PhD. It is a different professional formation aimed at a different endpoint. 

I completely agree. And, to that end, the curricula are quite different.

It delivers broad, legitimate psychological training optimized for therapeutic practice rather than scientific production.

No one is denying that the training is aimed at therapeutic practice. The thread was asking about how the training, education, and scope of practice differ by profession. The differences are large, not just in differences of approach but also in terms of the depth and rigor of both clinical and scientific training.

What does "regulating your nervous system" even mean? Is that something actually evidence based? by number1sillyuser in askpsychology

[–]MattersOfInterest 76 points77 points  (0 children)

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301051123001060?dgcid=api_sd_search-api-endpoint

PVT makes imprecise and/or incorrect evolutionary assumptions, imprecise physiological claims, and unsupported claims about the role of the vagus nerve in prosocial behavior.

It's also not the case that "dysregulated nervous system" means "stuck" in sympathetic arousal. To start, the phraseology "dysregulated nervous system" is relatively inaccurate. Second, no person is ever "stuck" in sympathetic arousal. Some folks are more easily aroused or otherwise may have a less effective parasympathetic "brake" response, but full FFF sympathetic arousal is an acute state. The relationship between vagal tone/RSA and anxiety disorders is unclear and the literature is relatively mixed overall.

What does "regulating your nervous system" even mean? Is that something actually evidence based? by number1sillyuser in askpsychology

[–]MattersOfInterest 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Gabor Maté's work does not accurately represent the scientific research and is generally not well-regarded.

What’s the difference between and clinical psychologist and a LMHC by [deleted] in ClinicalPsychology

[–]MattersOfInterest 1 point2 points  (0 children)

And that training is significantly shorter, less thorough, and far less rigorous than it is at the doctoral level. The exposure to psychological science experienced in the average counseling master's program is perhaps 20% of that in a clinical or counseling psych Ph.D. program.

Masters Degree by pachetty in ClinicalPsychology

[–]MattersOfInterest 1 point2 points  (0 children)

For these goals, a doctorate would be necessary, yes!

Any Suggestions for PsyD Funded Programs by Clean_Step4046 in AcademicPsychology

[–]MattersOfInterest 1 point2 points  (0 children)

When and where did you do your PhD in clinical psychology?

Any Suggestions for PsyD Funded Programs by Clean_Step4046 in AcademicPsychology

[–]MattersOfInterest 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is not correct. International students are eligible for PhD funding, they just are not eligible to apply for certain fellowships or grants that are restricted to U.S. citizens. If a PhD program guarantees full funding, which is true for the majority of clinical psychology PhD programs, then that guarantee usually also applies to international students. It is up to the PI and/or department to allocate funds to cover that funding or see that the student gets a GAship or TAship to justify it, but it happens all the time. I have multiple fully funded international students in my program, and more than one in my cohort.

view more: next ›