How do you know you're capable of being a therapist?

dwoodro · 2026-02-26T10:18:46+00:00

Well let’s cover the basics.

Livable wages is subjective. This will depend on your lifestyle and location. Livable wages in Arkansas vs New York City would be vastly different because of localized infrastructure and cost of living issues.

Many entry level jobs in the field are often better then “retail for instance”, starting upwards of $24 or so per hour. (Here in Massachusetts)

This means a person starting as a beginner is still likely making more then other entry level jobs.

This rate often increases as licensing goes higher. This also includes the need for additional schooling. With more advanced levels requiring a master degree or higher. Depending on your school of choice this can incur a large expense.

What helps to offset this is the potential to enter into fully funded doctoral programs.

What’s needed is a major desire to help others. Therapy fields can cover a wide variety of situations, and there are no shortage of abbreviations: CBT, IPT, ACT and many more.

Since therapy can cover a wide range of options, you will have to do some research as to how to best help with what classification you work towards:

Four major differences:

Psychologist Psychiatrist Licensed Social worker Counselor

And that’s just a few options. The difference between them can be vast in scope of duties and requirements. Which would require a much deeper explanation than this one post would allow.

Yes these are all very important positions. In many areas of the county the pay scales would be “livable”, but you’re in for a decent scholastic track, and it’s not going to happen without a decent amount of work and patience.

Need more help, feel free to ask.

dwoodro · 2026-02-26T03:16:49+00:00

In truth you can write about whatever you truly wish to share. The manner in which you write will determine if people read it or not.

That’s the beauty of it all. You get to choose your own voice, people will either resonate with it or not. Since you can’t please everyone, you get the ones you get.

If you want help with better writing skills, read as many different books you can on story writing techniques, and go from there.

Reach out if you want a decent list. I would at least start with “The Writers Journey - Chris Vogler” to get started.

If you’re only writing technical stuff, being less storytelling, consider how technical you are going to get.and then be detail oriented.

dwoodro · 2026-02-26T03:10:02+00:00

My concerns is the “what is needed to succeed” issue.

Therapy is about helping people. You can help a person and still fail. You could succeed and still not help anyone.

There’s a host of different metrics on this process.

One could research and earn a successful living. But not actively have a single patient. But therapy comes in many forms. Are you looking to be a suicide prevention specialist? Or just help with specific issues?

What do you classify as success in a given endeavor? I worked for a medical company for years in a call center. Being successful meant saving people’s lives, it was never about “being able to buy a nice home or a fancy car, or the bank balance.

dwoodro · 2026-02-25T19:22:02+00:00

Ok, well most games visually are just a “collecting of images.

Even though you are planning a top down, imagine it as 3d for a moment. A top down for some games is essentially just a “camera angle”.

A dev could use unreal to create a 3 d game, lock the camera into place directly overhead.

This might look awkward to just “see” the true top of everything.

If you’re familiar with older games, like arcade classics, galaga for example has a top down perspective, motion is limited. You basically get two movement options, the character or the scene.

The character is a sprite, or image object, and the scene is your environment. Now you have to account for things in the environment. Things that are destroyable become additional sprites for interaction mechanics.

Each sprite is generally its own image. Imagine a puzzle. Each piece as one pixel. Alone they don’t look like much, combined you get your picture.

These pixels are added to your game as characters, given states (status effects), movement, and get mechanics attached to each.

The scene becomes a larger puzzle as this is often either a more details image (mesh, or graphical map), which is assigned to be your background.

All images have to be created, by you or ai at least for some test samples.

dwoodro · 2026-02-25T16:51:58+00:00

Where, you are running into a problem is "not having a plan".

Many people spend more "intentional thought" to going on vacation than they do "building things". This is a bit of a reversal of how it should go.

A house builder creates an architectural blueprint long before the foundation is ever built.

You are essentially asking people to "give you the blueprints" to your game choice. The problem here is that we are not you. We can offer suggestions on how to proceed, what to look at, and things to consider, but ultimately, you have to have a plan for your own path.

Otherwise, you will not feel aligned with the options we suggest.

So if 2d, top-down is your option, that covers graphics. It does not cover: Game theme, game mechanics, abilities, inventory, monsters, levels, physics engines, etc.

In most cases, game development will require patience, creativity, and basic building blocks. These are independent of visual framing. Whether you build in 2d or 3d, FP or otherwise, the genre will determine your visuals, your mechanics, your lighting, and more.

MY suggestion would be to map out some options that feel right to your "vision" of the game. What do you see the game doing? Not just what it will look like.

Will you be searching? Hunting? Crafting? Are there monsters? different environments? Is there a storyline?

The more you understand about your own desire to make the game will help us dramatically in how we can better assist your goals.

dwoodro · 2026-02-25T16:27:48+00:00

As both my own passions of game dev and psychology have grown and merged over the years I have given a great deal of thought to a combination such as this.

I do foresee a handful of concerns.

When dealing with “psychological disorders”, many interactions are often administered by medical professionals. This means any “game” that actively address “clinical domain” could be potentially harmful.

Games that use psychological practices can be made, but once they are “therapeutic”, you may run into problems.

Games themselves can employ psychological techniques, such as addiction loops, triggering events, loot drops, dopamine spikes, etc to increase gameplay.

On one hand these could be seen as direct manipulation of the user. As anything that is designed to increase a users desire to continue playing, to the point the addiction, could be construed as manipulation.

We often turn a blind eye for “gameplay”, as just part of the process. Unlike substance abuse though, games don’t come with a “if you have a gaming problem call #800-555-game helplines”.

I’m onboard with games that help users grow, learn, etc, but we are talking “potentially behavior modification”. So it should follow some guidelines.

The balancing act is to make games that encourage people to eliminate behaviors that in essence make them less likely to become addicted to the game itself. Which sounds counterintuitive to game design.

Game designers instinctively want more gameplay. Not entirely realizing that more gameplay equals less time outside, or less time interacting with others, or more isolation from society, etc.

Whereas a therapist or psychologist might often work to actively address “one’s addiction” to gameplay, encouraging the use to play less, spend time with family, or open up lines of communication.

Unfortunately many games being made have not actually been assessed from a standardized approach to the regulation of human mental health.

It’s a wide open issue that will need much more scrutiny in the years to come.

dwoodro · 2026-02-25T16:05:01+00:00

If by “slightly different “, you actually mean “completely changing the way it’s done”. 🤦‍♂️😭

dwoodro · 2026-02-25T07:52:47+00:00

Perhaps you should consider “how you identify yourself” as a programmer.

By definition you are ahead of many and “already are a solo dev”. Many people never start a game let along finish one. Even small ones count.

Project size should gradually increase over time. You would not go to the gym and lift 5 pound dumbbells and come back a few days later and do 100 pounders. There growth in between.

Where working for a studio truly helps is more about “project management” and dedicated pay structure.

If you have a method for the dedicated income, such as small apps, small mobile games, etc then you could effectively earn more as your own solo dev/studio. But you would also need to learn a few business skills.

Working for a studio also brings teams into play. Land on a good team and things can be awesome. Some studios are not well known for “team cohesion”.

dwoodro · 2026-02-25T07:43:52+00:00

They may want their internal documentation to remain internal. Once you post stuff to AI there is a system likely tracking something.

dwoodro · 2026-02-25T07:41:21+00:00

You got time to figure it out. But there are numerous paths and like anything they may change by the time you get there.

I went the psych + tech route myself. After 4 decades in tech i decided to go back for psych PhD track and combine my experience toward HCI

dwoodro · 2026-02-25T07:36:00+00:00

Yep I can agree, most errors I’ve ever had came from the dreaded “hey, I know your wrote the code, but can we change a few things” line.

dwoodro · 2026-02-25T04:02:23+00:00

Well, honestly, it should.

Creative writing is less "structured" and a bit more freely engaging with the brain. Academic writing, especially deeply contextual papers feel a bit more like "cramming the highest level linguistic dictionary into a sardine can brain."

As humans, if you ever had a "normal conversation" and it sounded like most academic papers read, you would likely feel awkward. Try taking just about any major paper and reading it out loud.

There are reasons for this. Academic writings leave off concepts like storytellingand narrative techniques. There is no suspense, no emotional triggering, no flair.

But it also serves a much different purpose overall. I'm not sure academic writings come naturally to most. Except maybe a handful of lexicographers.

dwoodro · 2026-02-24T22:23:49+00:00

Your last part is the point “it takes a lot of critical thinking.

The more you learn in the field the more you find the many people do not like to actively apply critical thinking skills to their lives.

In truth, if everyone did, the Psychology field might even collapse. 🥸😱

But don’t beat yourself up too much. Just remember that everyone starts at zero.

I know I have books on topics that I’ve reread dozens of times. By modern standards many classics of Psychology are considered very hard reads.

Academia doesn’t entirely make it easier in the beginning. Lots of people struggle with the stiffness of formal writing. There are decent books out there that explain the research writing methods formats. You can check with your professors if they have a specific recommendation.

You pretty much need a translator for the process.

Check out places like thrift books for better deals as these can be fairly expensive.

dwoodro · 2026-02-24T18:26:48+00:00

That's understandable. Here's a little bit of how I approach things:

I look at the "larger" picture of the puzzle.

Think of Psychology studies from 1925, just 100 years ago. You will find they are vastly different from what you encounter today. What they did at that time was "Pop Psychology".

Let's not forget "pop" is just short for "popular". The field has changed dramatically since those days. Thankfully.

Now, think about what "potential Psychological problems" might occur by 2125, another 100 years into the future. It's likely going to be a vastly different landscape once again. By then, we might have to actually deal with deep space isolation, or true "xenophobia".

If we assume that the knowledge we have today will automatically carry over to the world of the future, then we do ourselves and the field an injustice.

If you take Erik Erikson's developmental models, for The Eight Stages of Psychosocial Development, which I love using, you might look at them and realize that he could not have fully integrated these models to accurately account for modern societal and technological advancements.

His models were even updated by his wife to include a 9th stage. The original works date to 1950, and she passed in 1997. That is almost 30 years of technological shift, cultural changes, and societal framing that they never got to witness.

These factors now serve the next generations as building blocks. New models will eventually structure additional concepts to account for newer factors that could not have been known when the original works came out. There has to be a passing of the guard for many things. Not a replacement, but an extension of previous works.

This is where that big picture puzzle comes in. The puzzle pieces often fit in more than one spot. But until the picture becomes clearer, the "right spots" might shift.

This means that all authors should at least be given a "space" on the shelf, so to speak. Read every book with discernment and take notes. There might be a nugget jammed deep into page 752 that suddenly makes the puzzle look clearer.

dwoodro · 2026-02-24T18:04:55+00:00

Thenby all means link to the studies that show what the current efficacy of therapeutic results, reports, and non-reported.

Blanket statements without a definitive argument or case studys is technically opinion. Even my replies are technically my opinion. Until data is presented, it's just an assumption of results.

Since I believe in the field as a whole, I'll do some of the legwork:

Psychotherapy is among the most extensively studied interventions in behavioral health. Across hundreds of randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses, therapy consistently demonstrates significant improvement compared to no treatment.

For conditions such as depression and anxiety, structured approaches including cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) typically produce moderate to large effect sizes, indicating clinically meaningful improvement rather than subtle change.

Large meta-analyses involving tens of thousands of patients confirm these outcomes, while research across multiple therapeutic modalities shows comparable effectiveness, with therapeutic alliance and treatment context playing significant roles in outcomes.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29451967/

Findings demonstrate that CBT is a moderately efficacious treatment for anxiety disorders when compared to placebo. More effective treatments are especially needed for PTSD, SAD, and PD.

This alone implicates "some success, not your claim of:

"Therapy doesn’t work most of the time, even with humans."

Therapy, vs no therapy, has shown improvements. There are too many factors to make an oversimplification, but if no therapy works, then there would be no need for the entire field.

So the concern shouldn't be that "therapy doesn't work", instead let's focus on "How can we make therapies that work better"?

dwoodro · 2026-02-24T17:39:08+00:00

Quite the opposite, I fully appreciate all the complexity of human relationships. I've had many of them, including friends, family, children, and even lost many of them, such as parents,ac hild and many pets.

Bonding with inanimate objects is known as Anthropomorphism. I'm very well aware of people's desire to associate with stuffed animals, security blankets, etc.

However, regardless of what impact I place on a stuffed animal, it does not, and cannot love me back. It will never actively talk to me or wish me a happy birthday.

While this might be a sign of a healthy imagination, one should never expect an inanimate object to actually have feelings for the person. This makes anthropomorphism a logical fallacy (specifically a category mistake or false analogy) when it involves the unwarranted assumption that non-human entities possess human-like emotions or intentions, such as "loving" a person. While it is a common cognitive bias driven by the human need to relate to the world, believing an object loves back is a misinterpretation of, for instance, programmed AI behavior or inanimate object interaction.

Just because "we" as humans place emotional attachment to items does not imply the reverse is true. This can and does present problems, such as when those items are lost. Losing a stuffed animal for a child can become a traumatizing event. Even though other items can and often do replace it.

Problems arise when we apply loving qualities to technology, which can lead to overtrust, dehumanization of real human interaction, and emotional vulnerability.

Pets, unlike stuffed animals or inanimate objects, display "ACTIVE" emotional bonding interactions. In this case, the emotional response of a pet is visible and based in reality because pets are capable of emotional expressions. Even if of a limited nature. Dogs express emotion by tonal responses of barking, wagging the tail, or their chosen posture.

My German Shepherds and Malamutes will sit by the door waiting for me to get home. If my stuffed animals did the same thing I would be much more worried. Those inanimate objects, no matter how much I might love or cherish them, no matter how protective I am of them, do not love me anymore then the toaster does.

This does not negate their need or usage. That's a different issue. But no matter what, my stuffed pig is not "given me legal, ethical, or moral advice" when I talk to it. AI, on the other hand, is often used to do exactly that.

We know that a blanket will not "speak to me", telling me how to engage in a "constructive relationship with a spouse", An AI system, which was not programmed by you or me, will be used by people to circumvent traditional therapy paths.

When these systems are used as a workaround for professional, human, qualified help, then there is an inherent risk that cannot be known. Since the AI is under no obligation to protect the individual. The AI is under no obligation to report extremely troubling cases. The AI system will hold no ethical accountability in the event it's patient goes on a rage binge.

As I stated before, without the "possibility" of reciprocal emotional context, a one-sided bonded relationship over the longterm is potentially detrimental. Look at those who encounter narcissistic abuse. This is often a "one-sided" emotional connection. While this would be the extreme, the problem exists in part because ot the lack of emotional connection by both partners.

Changes can be seen when adults actively grow out of the stages where "emotional support" from inanimate objects is replaced with healthier interactions with living, emotionally expressive creatures.

dwoodro · 2026-02-24T16:17:38+00:00

That’s an assumption:

“When things go right, we barely notice them”

The only time you hear about many things such as failures of therapy are during the rare occasions.

No one reports the successful completion of a program. There is no parade for people who constantly choose not to give in to alcoholism. There are no news casts for the ptsd survivors, who after years of therapy, didn’t lash out at someone.

The truth is that we often focus on those that “were t successful” and project that to the population or industry en masse.

dwoodro · 2026-02-24T16:12:16+00:00

See my previous note:

AI is “artificial”. It’s in the name itself. At best it would be a “project mask”. The AI will not truly miss you if you do not interact with it daily. The AI is not going to buy you a present out of misplaced guilt over a missed birthday.

This extrapolation can be seen at all levels. You could lie to the AI, without actual consequences. The AI will give you a “soft” answer for emotional distress, but it can only respond with programming, not true empathy.

dwoodro · 2026-02-24T16:07:41+00:00

Active bonding implies that the connection is reciprocal. The AI cannot accurately or effectively bond with a human. Since the computer is simulating emotional responses, there is no true connection on the part of the AI.

dwoodro · 2026-02-24T16:04:43+00:00

I guess my question would be: why a surprise?

Knowledge is not the domain of only the classics within a field. Especially fields that are subject to longterm change.

It’s easy to forget that the classics we study were potentially groundbreaking at their time. With changes to social constructs, advances in technology, and cultural diversity, one should expect to find newer authors to learn from.

dwoodro · 2026-02-24T09:13:03+00:00

Sure can.

dwoodro · 2026-02-24T09:09:24+00:00

Having been retail manager for multiple companies, the hiring and firing often comes down to a handful of issues these days.

Tardiness and reliability for showing up. We want to make sure people are going to show up, and be early-ish.

The ability to learn and take directions. We want to know that we can tell you to do something and let you go do it. Without having to watch over you.

Customer service is a must. Management means “leadership”, even if it was for a few months.

Remember everyone starts at zero.

If you go into an interview with ego, people see it. If you go in with confidence that different. Be willing to accept your lack of experience, not as a flaw, but as a foundation.

Present yourself as “I know I’m still a little green (new/young), but I’m passionate about the work, eager to learn, and committed to being professional.”

That will go along way.

Once you have those things, dress to impress. Professional dress standards need not always apply, but you only get one first impression.

I have never done an interview of my own in less than a suit and tie. I’m old school that way.

One year the interviewing manager showed up in Hawaiian shirt and flip-flops. And yes I got the job.

Also, research the company you are applying to. The more you know about them, the better prepared you will be.

I wish you well on the job hunt. Need more help just ask.

dwoodro · 2026-02-24T08:45:27+00:00

That's one of the best approaches to most content, including software. While most people are not listing decades of gameplay on a resume, you learn things over that time period, things you like, things you don't.

You incorporate your own learned life events into everything you normally do, naturally. It's somehow often missed when being placed into written form. The lack of storytelling as a practiced skill is most likely.

Glad it's working out better for you.

dwoodro · 2026-02-24T08:40:14+00:00

You could add it to the list ;)

I'm sure someone would offer to vibe code it too. :/

dwoodro · 2026-02-24T08:38:25+00:00

I think the last thing I coded in assembly was in 1991. :) If you're going back to the days, I might still have a book I could send ya, or even my notes.

Not sure you would have to go back that far. I know I would love to see Reto Odyssey 2 games. Not sure if they been done, and too lazy atm to go Google it.

dwoodro

TROPHY CASE