An interesting thing one person telling another person what they are worth. Something we all tell each other to be assertive against: only you know how much you are worth, we are all special, so on. Something we so quickly accept when an authority figure, literal or imagined, takes the opportunity to rate us based on some established system of weak? prior consent. Obviously I have some bitter feelings about this.
First of all, let me say that I am all for criticism. I can take it, I can dish it, it's how we all get better at what we do. What kills me is the whole fuzziness of subjectivity v objectivity. My blue is your green is his red. The problem is when concreteness is removed I think we tend to do two things that contradict each other: one, we rationalize, and two, we exaggerate. I may be told I was "good" at something, which is a total objective, bull-****, waste of time statement, and rationalize that I had done something well when I had only just done it well enough. On the other hand, I might exaggerate that I had done it terribly since I had not completed whatever task "excellently." Neither course sheds any light on the original evaluator's intended meaning.
How helpful is this system? Essentially it creates a feeling of accomplishment or failure in the reviewed, largely regardless of the original intent of the reviewer. Why do we insist on doing it? Somehow we are obviously convincing ourselves that it is useful.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Neophyte
A paper I recently wrote that I feel is relevant:
This is an opportunity for me to speak more openly about an academic experience, without specific structural demands bogging down what I might otherwise say. The goal of this paper is to both respectfully and honestly describe an out-of-the-classroom learning opportunity I recently had regarding the topic of group counseling. I attended a semi-annual meeting of the Mid-Atlantic Group Psychotherapy Society (MAGPS). The focus of the conference was trauma in group work, entitled, “Vicissitudes of Trauma in Group Psychotherapy: Little, Big, and Hidden,” with guest speaker Dr. Bonnie Buchele. This was one of the worst educational experiences in terms of hostility I have ever experienced. However, that negative experience does not diminish the importance of the conference to me in an educational way; it may in fact have enhanced it. Here begins my ironically traumatizing weekend about counseling trauma groups.
I would describe myself as positive, determined and hard-working person. I feel that I look for the best in people and situations, and am constantly burdened by empathy and the paladin nature of my heart. These qualities drew me to counseling, but as such are always under my constant surveillance to keep in check. The reason I think this is important to mention is not for vanity, but because I want to emphasize that I came into this conference enthusiastically and humbly: ready to learn and benefit from more experienced professionals’ knowledge and experience.
At my practicum I work with sexual assault and domestic violence clients. At the time of the conference I was just over half-way through with a group I was co-leading to empower teen survivors of sexual abuse. I was eager to learn things at the MAGPS trauma conference to take back to my group. Additionally, the trauma stories of my client population were starting to get to me and I wanted to hear from professionals how they had coped with secondary traumatization; what was and is for me an increasingly important aspect of working with traumatized clients. In short, I wanted to be at this conference.
Just as I had expectations and plans for conference weekend, so did the conference planners, speakers and organizers. The conference lasted for three days in West Virginia, located in a hotel’s conference center. The days had each of three main components, in various flavors and sequences: lectures by the main speaker, small group meetings, and a socialization opportunity. Conference attendees were expected to participate in at least the first two of these components, while the third was optional. The conference was very well organized, the speaker was knowledgeable, and all the logistics ran smoothly. In fact I feel fairly confident that most attendees enjoyed a nicely organized conference weekend and were happy with all of its components.
I would not say that I am an exception. The first evening (a Friday evening) started well. Towson students had a great showing at the conference and people noticed. We had the support of each other in testing out new territory as budding professionals, and we were all excited. The first evening began with a two-hour or so presentation about basic trauma theory by the guest presenter. I had had a crash course in most of it at my practicum, so most of the first lecture was a review. It was encouraging to me in terms of the relevancy of the weekend and my expectations. After the lecture, it was announced that we were to meet in smaller, pre-assigned groups for 90 minutes. These were to be process groups and open for whatever group members wanted to use the time for. My group was assigned to meet in a hotel suite on the fourth floor.
I wasted time finding my way up to the fourth floor to avoid the awkwardness of being the first to arrive, but somehow still managed to be only the second group member to come into the room after one of the co-leaders whom had already sat down. Within the next five minutes most of the other group members arrived and there we sat: the seven of us plus two co-leaders. The session turned to be very psycho-analytic and minimal in co-leader involvement.
The first hour during that session was pained with silences and polite surface-talk. Still, the various members began to settle into their various roles. There was the “make everyone happy” woman whom had helped organized the conference; the “I am changing careers but I’m still more knowledgeable and lofty” woman from DC; the “foreign doctor” who struggled through his accent and connected everything to medical symptoms and terminology; the “I’m a homosexual from Hopkins and I’ve been in a million groups before” boy from a Master’s program at Hopkins; the “perfect student, perfect group member, I did all the reading” girl; the “I’m so kind- hearted and understand everybody” woman; and me, the “I’m shy because I’ve never done anything like this, but I want you to think I’m smart” girl from Towson.
The group leaders said little to nothing. However, after some time their roles within the co-leader role began to delineate as well. They both were the “we don’t talk, we listen even though silence is awkward” psychodynamic co-leaders. They were both female. One woman fell into the “I don’t say much but when I do I’m always right and effective, I’m perfectly parsimonious” role, partly determined by her age and presumed vast experience with groups. The other woman became the “I’m new at this but I’m trying and therefore much more likeable” leader role. At first, I liked them both.
An hour passed in our first session as a small group and all the usual beginning stage of group standards were being met. We were awkward, feeling out the group roles and expectations for ourselves and each other. The mood was not aggressive, but it was definitely tense. Then, the Hopkins boy was telling a story about a previous group he had been in when the foreign doctor interrupted. The parsimonious and perfect older co-leader jumped in with an intervention that no one got. I felt bad for her, and tried to bail her out. I asked if she wanted a play-by-play summary of what had just happened to help the group back-track a little. She said nothing. I proceeded to summarize the past 2 minutes or so of interaction when she interrupted me to say that was not what she wanted, followed with a rephrase of the same ineffective intervention as before.
At this point, I realize my story-telling tone takes on some hostility towards this co-leader. In retrospect I would edit that out for respectfulness’ sake, but I leave it because that was very much how I began to feel: hostile towards this leader- but the interruption was not why. In response to her interruption, I jokingly said, “oh, shut me up!” Apparently, the co-leader took this personally. Magically, the group began to transfer all the awkward tension from the session to me and my comment, following the co-leader’s lead. They began grilling me about insecurities and my childhood, asking me what was wrong with me to have said such a thing and so forth. All this occurred within a minute and I had somehow become the problem of the group. I had taken on all the negative energy and the group was focused on me as the source of it.
I began to withdraw which turned into blaming by the group and the parsimonious perfect co-leader for distributing my “negativity” to the group and ruining the group experience. I wanted to dissolve into the couch. I wanted to crawl into a deep dark hole. I wanted to run out of the room. I wanted not to cry. The situation continued to evolve, pigeon-holing me into this negative role. My brain and my tongue were mixed up and I couldn’t talk because I thought my eyes would start to leak. The session ended. I kept up my collected façade until I got to the stairwell, leaving my group to ride the elevator together. Then I ran- I ran down the stairs and outside the building. My heart was pounding in my chest. I felt hurt, my cheeks were wet. I collapsed onto a bench to collect myself as panic set in.
In retrospect it is clear what type of transference occurred in that room. The older women assumed roles of defensive mothers towards resistant children. I assumed my childhood role of taking the negativity and anger without comment or complaint. The other tense group members followed suit and the negative, tense energy all went to me. I was the group scapegoat. They brought up too much too fast without any trust or rapport to speak of, and everyone, not just me, reverted to their more insecure, subjective selves. However, this does not by any stretch of the imagination excuse the co-leaders for the damage done in that session. It was nothing short of a first-session disaster forged from violating the basic rules of the beginning stage. Don’t push people too hard, don’t leave negativity unaddressed, don’t scapegoat anyone.
Needless to say, I fought an internal struggle the rest of that weekend to keep a positive attitude. The small groups were set to meet once or twice a day for the remainder of the weekend. I was terrified to go back. I lost sleep. I had nightmares. I even had a panic attack. Not to mention anything I planned on taking from this session in terms of my own personal and professional development had taken a major backseat. I am proud to say I somehow found the courage to go back to the next group meeting. I was hurting so bad, and feeling so scared, it was all I could do not to cry during that meeting. Group members shared feelings about my “hostility” and said I was “punishing them” for not talking that session. They said they had had bad dreams. I wonder if any of them considered that if they had had bad dreams, what it was that I had gone through. The perfect co-leader joined in the hurtful banter with how one person can destroy a group dynamic. They all said they were working so hard to “help me.” Still, I could say nothing. I was too hurt, I was too emotional. My throat wouldn’t let any words out. The second small group session ended.
The presentations and lectures of the weekend were long. Some felt relevant, some did not. I tried to suppress my feelings and learn what I could. I was lucky to have friends around me to help me keep it together that weekend. It was hard, and I didn’t need it. Even now, writing about it, it still hurts. Isn’t it funny how three hours with strangers can have that effect?
The last small group session was first thing Sunday morning. Again, I mustered the courage to go. By now the group had some side issues they were discussing and helping each other with. Still, I could not talk. Finally, towards the very end of the 90 minutes, I had convinced myself I needed to say something to the group, and that I could manage it while containing my feelings. I told them that I had felt targeted. I told them that during the first session I felt that I had become the center of all the negative and tense energy. I explained how excited I was to come to the conference and my feelings of confusion about what had happened in group the past few days, that I was not the person they thought I was.
Feeling pressured to give the group more to increase my likeability and therefore their ability to empathize (think about that statement, it upsets me that it was true) I told them about some of my past. I told them about my religious family and my role as the center of negativity for second- guessing religion. I told them how at times I thought that if my family was going to think of me badly, I might as well give that to them; after all, they thought it already. Someone from the group said that I did not have to act a certain way to be liked or not liked in group. I countered her, my boldness increasing, by saying that I did. That it was not until I told the group about myself and some of my own story, that they felt okay about me and “forgave” me. I told them I wasn’t ready to share that stuff with them, but that I thought that my options were to do that, or to leave carrying all the hostility, and that apparently, I was right. The group said nothing. The parsimonious perfect leader went into a story about how she was trying so hard to be a good therapist. The group focused on sympathizing with her. The session ended.
Bringing the weekend experience full-circle I honestly have to say that it was a terrible experience. For a few weeks after that I struggled with feelings of anxiety and sadness related to the small group sessions and what they brought up for me. I had been traumatized by my weekend on working with trauma in groups. I had to do a lot of self-care and self-reassurance that I was not the things that I had been labeled. I was even forced to address concerns surfaced by the experience about being a counselor at all. These things should not have happened as a result of that weekend, at least not in that way.
Feeling hurt the way that I do by the events of that conference weekend, I will admit it is hard for me to speak respectfully of the benefits it had for me. However, no matter how difficult the weekend was for me emotionally, I did learn important things that I will never forget. Some of those things are about good friends and inner strengths and are for a different essay. The one thing I learned that is important here is how it feels to be the ostracized group member. I learned first-hand the devastating consequences of neglecting to address conflict and forcing members to tell too much too quickly. I saw how damaging isolation and scapegoating is. I was lucky to have self-care strategies, a support system, and insight to get through my negative group experience. Many people do not. All the teens in my teen empowerment group have problems in one if not more of those areas. I learned that the guidelines in terms of group stages (the beginning stage most especially) are not just written for academic structure and teaching. They are written because they matter, and because they absolutely cannot be neglected.
This is an opportunity for me to speak more openly about an academic experience, without specific structural demands bogging down what I might otherwise say. The goal of this paper is to both respectfully and honestly describe an out-of-the-classroom learning opportunity I recently had regarding the topic of group counseling. I attended a semi-annual meeting of the Mid-Atlantic Group Psychotherapy Society (MAGPS). The focus of the conference was trauma in group work, entitled, “Vicissitudes of Trauma in Group Psychotherapy: Little, Big, and Hidden,” with guest speaker Dr. Bonnie Buchele. This was one of the worst educational experiences in terms of hostility I have ever experienced. However, that negative experience does not diminish the importance of the conference to me in an educational way; it may in fact have enhanced it. Here begins my ironically traumatizing weekend about counseling trauma groups.
I would describe myself as positive, determined and hard-working person. I feel that I look for the best in people and situations, and am constantly burdened by empathy and the paladin nature of my heart. These qualities drew me to counseling, but as such are always under my constant surveillance to keep in check. The reason I think this is important to mention is not for vanity, but because I want to emphasize that I came into this conference enthusiastically and humbly: ready to learn and benefit from more experienced professionals’ knowledge and experience.
At my practicum I work with sexual assault and domestic violence clients. At the time of the conference I was just over half-way through with a group I was co-leading to empower teen survivors of sexual abuse. I was eager to learn things at the MAGPS trauma conference to take back to my group. Additionally, the trauma stories of my client population were starting to get to me and I wanted to hear from professionals how they had coped with secondary traumatization; what was and is for me an increasingly important aspect of working with traumatized clients. In short, I wanted to be at this conference.
Just as I had expectations and plans for conference weekend, so did the conference planners, speakers and organizers. The conference lasted for three days in West Virginia, located in a hotel’s conference center. The days had each of three main components, in various flavors and sequences: lectures by the main speaker, small group meetings, and a socialization opportunity. Conference attendees were expected to participate in at least the first two of these components, while the third was optional. The conference was very well organized, the speaker was knowledgeable, and all the logistics ran smoothly. In fact I feel fairly confident that most attendees enjoyed a nicely organized conference weekend and were happy with all of its components.
I would not say that I am an exception. The first evening (a Friday evening) started well. Towson students had a great showing at the conference and people noticed. We had the support of each other in testing out new territory as budding professionals, and we were all excited. The first evening began with a two-hour or so presentation about basic trauma theory by the guest presenter. I had had a crash course in most of it at my practicum, so most of the first lecture was a review. It was encouraging to me in terms of the relevancy of the weekend and my expectations. After the lecture, it was announced that we were to meet in smaller, pre-assigned groups for 90 minutes. These were to be process groups and open for whatever group members wanted to use the time for. My group was assigned to meet in a hotel suite on the fourth floor.
I wasted time finding my way up to the fourth floor to avoid the awkwardness of being the first to arrive, but somehow still managed to be only the second group member to come into the room after one of the co-leaders whom had already sat down. Within the next five minutes most of the other group members arrived and there we sat: the seven of us plus two co-leaders. The session turned to be very psycho-analytic and minimal in co-leader involvement.
The first hour during that session was pained with silences and polite surface-talk. Still, the various members began to settle into their various roles. There was the “make everyone happy” woman whom had helped organized the conference; the “I am changing careers but I’m still more knowledgeable and lofty” woman from DC; the “foreign doctor” who struggled through his accent and connected everything to medical symptoms and terminology; the “I’m a homosexual from Hopkins and I’ve been in a million groups before” boy from a Master’s program at Hopkins; the “perfect student, perfect group member, I did all the reading” girl; the “I’m so kind- hearted and understand everybody” woman; and me, the “I’m shy because I’ve never done anything like this, but I want you to think I’m smart” girl from Towson.
The group leaders said little to nothing. However, after some time their roles within the co-leader role began to delineate as well. They both were the “we don’t talk, we listen even though silence is awkward” psychodynamic co-leaders. They were both female. One woman fell into the “I don’t say much but when I do I’m always right and effective, I’m perfectly parsimonious” role, partly determined by her age and presumed vast experience with groups. The other woman became the “I’m new at this but I’m trying and therefore much more likeable” leader role. At first, I liked them both.
An hour passed in our first session as a small group and all the usual beginning stage of group standards were being met. We were awkward, feeling out the group roles and expectations for ourselves and each other. The mood was not aggressive, but it was definitely tense. Then, the Hopkins boy was telling a story about a previous group he had been in when the foreign doctor interrupted. The parsimonious and perfect older co-leader jumped in with an intervention that no one got. I felt bad for her, and tried to bail her out. I asked if she wanted a play-by-play summary of what had just happened to help the group back-track a little. She said nothing. I proceeded to summarize the past 2 minutes or so of interaction when she interrupted me to say that was not what she wanted, followed with a rephrase of the same ineffective intervention as before.
At this point, I realize my story-telling tone takes on some hostility towards this co-leader. In retrospect I would edit that out for respectfulness’ sake, but I leave it because that was very much how I began to feel: hostile towards this leader- but the interruption was not why. In response to her interruption, I jokingly said, “oh, shut me up!” Apparently, the co-leader took this personally. Magically, the group began to transfer all the awkward tension from the session to me and my comment, following the co-leader’s lead. They began grilling me about insecurities and my childhood, asking me what was wrong with me to have said such a thing and so forth. All this occurred within a minute and I had somehow become the problem of the group. I had taken on all the negative energy and the group was focused on me as the source of it.
I began to withdraw which turned into blaming by the group and the parsimonious perfect co-leader for distributing my “negativity” to the group and ruining the group experience. I wanted to dissolve into the couch. I wanted to crawl into a deep dark hole. I wanted to run out of the room. I wanted not to cry. The situation continued to evolve, pigeon-holing me into this negative role. My brain and my tongue were mixed up and I couldn’t talk because I thought my eyes would start to leak. The session ended. I kept up my collected façade until I got to the stairwell, leaving my group to ride the elevator together. Then I ran- I ran down the stairs and outside the building. My heart was pounding in my chest. I felt hurt, my cheeks were wet. I collapsed onto a bench to collect myself as panic set in.
In retrospect it is clear what type of transference occurred in that room. The older women assumed roles of defensive mothers towards resistant children. I assumed my childhood role of taking the negativity and anger without comment or complaint. The other tense group members followed suit and the negative, tense energy all went to me. I was the group scapegoat. They brought up too much too fast without any trust or rapport to speak of, and everyone, not just me, reverted to their more insecure, subjective selves. However, this does not by any stretch of the imagination excuse the co-leaders for the damage done in that session. It was nothing short of a first-session disaster forged from violating the basic rules of the beginning stage. Don’t push people too hard, don’t leave negativity unaddressed, don’t scapegoat anyone.
Needless to say, I fought an internal struggle the rest of that weekend to keep a positive attitude. The small groups were set to meet once or twice a day for the remainder of the weekend. I was terrified to go back. I lost sleep. I had nightmares. I even had a panic attack. Not to mention anything I planned on taking from this session in terms of my own personal and professional development had taken a major backseat. I am proud to say I somehow found the courage to go back to the next group meeting. I was hurting so bad, and feeling so scared, it was all I could do not to cry during that meeting. Group members shared feelings about my “hostility” and said I was “punishing them” for not talking that session. They said they had had bad dreams. I wonder if any of them considered that if they had had bad dreams, what it was that I had gone through. The perfect co-leader joined in the hurtful banter with how one person can destroy a group dynamic. They all said they were working so hard to “help me.” Still, I could say nothing. I was too hurt, I was too emotional. My throat wouldn’t let any words out. The second small group session ended.
The presentations and lectures of the weekend were long. Some felt relevant, some did not. I tried to suppress my feelings and learn what I could. I was lucky to have friends around me to help me keep it together that weekend. It was hard, and I didn’t need it. Even now, writing about it, it still hurts. Isn’t it funny how three hours with strangers can have that effect?
The last small group session was first thing Sunday morning. Again, I mustered the courage to go. By now the group had some side issues they were discussing and helping each other with. Still, I could not talk. Finally, towards the very end of the 90 minutes, I had convinced myself I needed to say something to the group, and that I could manage it while containing my feelings. I told them that I had felt targeted. I told them that during the first session I felt that I had become the center of all the negative and tense energy. I explained how excited I was to come to the conference and my feelings of confusion about what had happened in group the past few days, that I was not the person they thought I was.
Feeling pressured to give the group more to increase my likeability and therefore their ability to empathize (think about that statement, it upsets me that it was true) I told them about some of my past. I told them about my religious family and my role as the center of negativity for second- guessing religion. I told them how at times I thought that if my family was going to think of me badly, I might as well give that to them; after all, they thought it already. Someone from the group said that I did not have to act a certain way to be liked or not liked in group. I countered her, my boldness increasing, by saying that I did. That it was not until I told the group about myself and some of my own story, that they felt okay about me and “forgave” me. I told them I wasn’t ready to share that stuff with them, but that I thought that my options were to do that, or to leave carrying all the hostility, and that apparently, I was right. The group said nothing. The parsimonious perfect leader went into a story about how she was trying so hard to be a good therapist. The group focused on sympathizing with her. The session ended.
Bringing the weekend experience full-circle I honestly have to say that it was a terrible experience. For a few weeks after that I struggled with feelings of anxiety and sadness related to the small group sessions and what they brought up for me. I had been traumatized by my weekend on working with trauma in groups. I had to do a lot of self-care and self-reassurance that I was not the things that I had been labeled. I was even forced to address concerns surfaced by the experience about being a counselor at all. These things should not have happened as a result of that weekend, at least not in that way.
Feeling hurt the way that I do by the events of that conference weekend, I will admit it is hard for me to speak respectfully of the benefits it had for me. However, no matter how difficult the weekend was for me emotionally, I did learn important things that I will never forget. Some of those things are about good friends and inner strengths and are for a different essay. The one thing I learned that is important here is how it feels to be the ostracized group member. I learned first-hand the devastating consequences of neglecting to address conflict and forcing members to tell too much too quickly. I saw how damaging isolation and scapegoating is. I was lucky to have self-care strategies, a support system, and insight to get through my negative group experience. Many people do not. All the teens in my teen empowerment group have problems in one if not more of those areas. I learned that the guidelines in terms of group stages (the beginning stage most especially) are not just written for academic structure and teaching. They are written because they matter, and because they absolutely cannot be neglected.
Friday, October 17, 2008
Playing Catch-Up
We've all heard it: prioritize. Consolidate all the many things that are expected of you by so many people (including yourself), the things you need to do to financially, physically and emotionally survive, and any "me time" you may have left over. I've always thought this was a very smart-sounding, yet impossible, almost silly, piece of advice.
People today, and especially in today's economy, have too much to do. Many are holding down one, two, three and more jobs to meet basic needs. Most are struggling with some type of debt- be it college loans, paying off big purchases like a car or house, or simply lines of credit used for emergencies that haven't seen enough financial surplus after basic needs to be fully paid off yet. I feel that once the requisite amount of time has been spent on addressing these complex monetary concerns, little time is left for the most important tasks on our agenda: self-care.
Therapists hear this over and over. "Take time for yourself. It is no longer a luxury to take time to take care of yourself. You have to take care of yourself," blah blah blah. Not to be pejoritive; this is great advice. The problem is it is absolutely correct, and completely impossible. Well, that's an exaggeration. I guess just mostly impossible. Tell me who has time to just take a nap, write a poem, journal, take a walk or jog, go to a museum, or have coffee with friends with all their other demanding responsibilities.
Let's consider for a moment the unique plight of the working woman. Luckily, in today's increasingly progressive society, there are increasingly more opportunities for women in the work place (varying payscales aside). What still hasn't changed are all of the woman's responsibilities in the home. Granted, there are many wonderful partners out there who split housework with women 50:50. God bless you. However, let's not kid ourselves by saying the classical division of labor between men and women is still the norm. Women are expected to cook, clean, housekeep, and watch the children. Any of us who have had to do these things for ourselves, let alone partners, children and other dependents, know that this is it's own full time job. Back to that woman with the opportunity to pursue her aspirations and career goals. She comes home from a long day at work, where likely she's busted her *ss to stay ahead in her career, and now she has a second shift of gender-specified tasks. Pobrecita.
One more thought on this. We all know the economy is in the crapper (I know, I can be so eloquent), but it is. Maybe it's on its way up again, maybe it's not. Regardless, people are losing their jobs. This brings up an interesting question. Now that women are finally pursuing their careers next to men, who loses their job first when the economy sucks? That question is largely rhetorical.
On the crashing economy- an ironic and sadistic thought. I am supervised as an MA level intern at a domestic violence and sexual assault counseling center. As the economy gets worse, we are seeing a huge spike in clients in our agency (our agency is sliding scale and doesn't charge most of its clients so the money here is not an obstacle for clients). Do you know why? People are home, they have lost their jobs, and they are unhappy. You do the math. The point is, the awful, sadistic point, is that the more the job market crashes, the more a future for me in the counseling profession/population I am working in is secure. Try and sleep on that.
People today, and especially in today's economy, have too much to do. Many are holding down one, two, three and more jobs to meet basic needs. Most are struggling with some type of debt- be it college loans, paying off big purchases like a car or house, or simply lines of credit used for emergencies that haven't seen enough financial surplus after basic needs to be fully paid off yet. I feel that once the requisite amount of time has been spent on addressing these complex monetary concerns, little time is left for the most important tasks on our agenda: self-care.
Therapists hear this over and over. "Take time for yourself. It is no longer a luxury to take time to take care of yourself. You have to take care of yourself," blah blah blah. Not to be pejoritive; this is great advice. The problem is it is absolutely correct, and completely impossible. Well, that's an exaggeration. I guess just mostly impossible. Tell me who has time to just take a nap, write a poem, journal, take a walk or jog, go to a museum, or have coffee with friends with all their other demanding responsibilities.
Let's consider for a moment the unique plight of the working woman. Luckily, in today's increasingly progressive society, there are increasingly more opportunities for women in the work place (varying payscales aside). What still hasn't changed are all of the woman's responsibilities in the home. Granted, there are many wonderful partners out there who split housework with women 50:50. God bless you. However, let's not kid ourselves by saying the classical division of labor between men and women is still the norm. Women are expected to cook, clean, housekeep, and watch the children. Any of us who have had to do these things for ourselves, let alone partners, children and other dependents, know that this is it's own full time job. Back to that woman with the opportunity to pursue her aspirations and career goals. She comes home from a long day at work, where likely she's busted her *ss to stay ahead in her career, and now she has a second shift of gender-specified tasks. Pobrecita.
One more thought on this. We all know the economy is in the crapper (I know, I can be so eloquent), but it is. Maybe it's on its way up again, maybe it's not. Regardless, people are losing their jobs. This brings up an interesting question. Now that women are finally pursuing their careers next to men, who loses their job first when the economy sucks? That question is largely rhetorical.
On the crashing economy- an ironic and sadistic thought. I am supervised as an MA level intern at a domestic violence and sexual assault counseling center. As the economy gets worse, we are seeing a huge spike in clients in our agency (our agency is sliding scale and doesn't charge most of its clients so the money here is not an obstacle for clients). Do you know why? People are home, they have lost their jobs, and they are unhappy. You do the math. The point is, the awful, sadistic point, is that the more the job market crashes, the more a future for me in the counseling profession/population I am working in is secure. Try and sleep on that.
Monday, August 25, 2008
On Talking to the Boss
I hate having to do this. I'm a hard worker, and so in my mind there is always this understanding that I am a good employee, doing good work, and my boss is always thinking, "I'm so glad I hired her." Then one of two things happens:
Scenario one: Boss calls you into office and shuts door. Something embarrassing about dress code, personal phone calls, or emails ensues.
Scenario two: You need to talk to the boss. You need time off, are asking for a raise, discussing a coworker, what have you. Half this battle is getting the nerves to just knock on the office door and bringing the situation on yourself, so to speak.
I have had a job since I was 14. I have been through scenario one as I stumbled through learning all the ridiculous red tape associated with corporate America. Gag. I have been through scenario two when I felt a situation needed to be brought to the boss' attention. The latest was in college when two boys were crossing the line of comfort with some other coworkers.
Here's the thing. I am nice. Usually. But I DEFINATELY want my boss and coworkers (and even friends) to think I'm nice. It's true that I don't enjoy having to create a situation. In fact, I hate it. But I don't know that I can attribute all of that to just being nice. Some of it is self preservation too, I think.
You know what, I am not afraid of confrontation. At all. Bring it on. BUT if you are my boss, please just send me an email.
Scenario one: Boss calls you into office and shuts door. Something embarrassing about dress code, personal phone calls, or emails ensues.
Scenario two: You need to talk to the boss. You need time off, are asking for a raise, discussing a coworker, what have you. Half this battle is getting the nerves to just knock on the office door and bringing the situation on yourself, so to speak.
I have had a job since I was 14. I have been through scenario one as I stumbled through learning all the ridiculous red tape associated with corporate America. Gag. I have been through scenario two when I felt a situation needed to be brought to the boss' attention. The latest was in college when two boys were crossing the line of comfort with some other coworkers.
Here's the thing. I am nice. Usually. But I DEFINATELY want my boss and coworkers (and even friends) to think I'm nice. It's true that I don't enjoy having to create a situation. In fact, I hate it. But I don't know that I can attribute all of that to just being nice. Some of it is self preservation too, I think.
You know what, I am not afraid of confrontation. At all. Bring it on. BUT if you are my boss, please just send me an email.
Friday, August 15, 2008
For Their Own Good.
There is at least one, if not many more romantic or drama genre films, books and stories where one character has to make a sacrifice for another: for the first's benefit and at the second's expense. Let me get more specific. Remember that scene where the friend is convincing the character that they have to tell someone they hate them and to get out of their life to protect them? The logic always being, if you don't make them hate you, they will never fully get over/get out/go away from you; and if they did not get over/get out/ or go away from you some part of their physical, emotional, mental or somesuch health or betterment will be compromised. Ok. Needless to say recently this type of sacrifice has been on my mind.
I feel I am a nice person- (neither here nor there the point is I don't like being mean to people). When I find the situation calls for some less genial exchanges, I worry and obsess about it both before and after. I worry if the other person is ok, if I did what was right and necessary and was it for the best. There is a complicated moment in a relationship when friendships that began before the relationship become threatening to one or the other person in the relationship. Whether it be insecurity or mistrust (hopefully not of the partner but perhaps of the friend/ friendship) this moment always seems to happen. Now you're in a pickle. Do you cancel those threatening friendships to appease the relationship? Surely not- you shouldn't have to compromise such important parts of yourself and your life. It does get you thinking, though.
You know those quasi relationships? The friends who always are "better" friends, the ones you had/have an attraction to? The friendships that always possibly could potentially be more? What is to be done with these when you are in a new relationship and question if the "friend" is perhaps still hopeful of a different kind of relationship?
I solved this one by being mean. I thought it would be easier to dislike me. I hope I was right.
I feel I am a nice person- (neither here nor there the point is I don't like being mean to people). When I find the situation calls for some less genial exchanges, I worry and obsess about it both before and after. I worry if the other person is ok, if I did what was right and necessary and was it for the best. There is a complicated moment in a relationship when friendships that began before the relationship become threatening to one or the other person in the relationship. Whether it be insecurity or mistrust (hopefully not of the partner but perhaps of the friend/ friendship) this moment always seems to happen. Now you're in a pickle. Do you cancel those threatening friendships to appease the relationship? Surely not- you shouldn't have to compromise such important parts of yourself and your life. It does get you thinking, though.
You know those quasi relationships? The friends who always are "better" friends, the ones you had/have an attraction to? The friendships that always possibly could potentially be more? What is to be done with these when you are in a new relationship and question if the "friend" is perhaps still hopeful of a different kind of relationship?
I solved this one by being mean. I thought it would be easier to dislike me. I hope I was right.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
On Exhaustion
Ok I have to admit it- I am exhausted. I am not even done w/ gradschool let alone actively practicing in the field of psych and already I'm facing burnout. This is when I realized it:
I was sitting today at one of my two jobs talking to a friend online who said they had had a day to do laundry and dishes and all of those things (that is what they would do during a weekday lately or something). I immediately thought- How wonderful would that be!? Picturing the stack of dirty dishes in my sink and my hamper towering over with dirty laundry that I just DON'T HAVE TIME TO DO. That is so frustrating!
So it has been a year since I have been living on my own, working two jobs, taking a full course load of classes, managing a relationship, taking care of a puppy nacio (y manoso tambien), trying to practice and drill my spanish, write a thesis, keep painting paintings, run every day, and manage my tiny paycheck to paycheck budget against my hugely inflated bills. That is just the logistic stress- there is also emotional stress. Stress of studying psychology and working with clinical populations, stress of living alone and lonliness, relationship drama, family issues, coping with my own traumatic experiences, and so on it goes.
Needless to say, I am exhausted; mentally and physically. It was a sign to me when I started having nightmares or when I couldn't find one sock (with plenty more availible) and started to cry. I am at overload. You know, the good advice from here too is just a list of more things TO DO which I do NOT have any time for. AT ALL.
Don't get me wrong, I realize everybody is busy, but I also realize this: I am not superman and I am getting TIRED!!!!!!!!!!!!
I was sitting today at one of my two jobs talking to a friend online who said they had had a day to do laundry and dishes and all of those things (that is what they would do during a weekday lately or something). I immediately thought- How wonderful would that be!? Picturing the stack of dirty dishes in my sink and my hamper towering over with dirty laundry that I just DON'T HAVE TIME TO DO. That is so frustrating!
So it has been a year since I have been living on my own, working two jobs, taking a full course load of classes, managing a relationship, taking care of a puppy nacio (y manoso tambien), trying to practice and drill my spanish, write a thesis, keep painting paintings, run every day, and manage my tiny paycheck to paycheck budget against my hugely inflated bills. That is just the logistic stress- there is also emotional stress. Stress of studying psychology and working with clinical populations, stress of living alone and lonliness, relationship drama, family issues, coping with my own traumatic experiences, and so on it goes.
Needless to say, I am exhausted; mentally and physically. It was a sign to me when I started having nightmares or when I couldn't find one sock (with plenty more availible) and started to cry. I am at overload. You know, the good advice from here too is just a list of more things TO DO which I do NOT have any time for. AT ALL.
Don't get me wrong, I realize everybody is busy, but I also realize this: I am not superman and I am getting TIRED!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Breif thoughts on corporate America
Several things annoy me about corporate America. By corporate America I mean white- collar jobs that require computers (usually) and cubicles (more often than not) and monkey suits (always). Today what I don't like is the "work". Ever feel like you are busy doing things all day but get nothing useful done? Today I am working on a revamp of a corporate system by switching subgroups members belong to into fewer, larger groups. WHAT A WASTE OF MY TIME. I could be doing something useful like working on my research, but nope, gotta pay the rent. I have to ask the hackneyed question-what happened? How did we get this way? Somehow someone decided that this needs to be done: paperwork NEEDS to happen, filing NEEDS to happen, data entry and other gopher work NEEDS to happen. More on this later- I have to get back to my "work."
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
People watching: The spider and the fly and sitting at Panera
She is not a west coast girl. Her hair is not bleached and stacked, her nails aren't done, her face isn't made up and her bag is not Louis Vuitton ( I even had to look up how to spell that). She's probably wearing a ten dollar dress with cheaper shoes, but they all match her eyes. The hair might have been brushed this morning but driving down the beltway for twenty minutes with the windows down pulled it every which way and it looks tousled, a lone bobby pin struggling to hold it away from her face. She is fervently bent forward over a laptop she got on special (which has since been recalled) sipping on a lemonade (the price for using the free internet at Panera). Every now and then she looks up, looks around, passes through some unreadable expressions, then goes back to her work. These are the tell tale signs of an overworked, underpaid, struggling graduate student in psychology. She is struggling mind body and finance, but she is happy.
Though I am guilty of such a display, I maintain that I am not the intellectual-student-young-person stereotype you find doing such things. Or maybe I am, and I just hate stereotypes. Anyway, the stereotype and associated labels are not why I am at Panera. I go for the free internet, because it is closer to my classes than my tiny apartment, and most importantly, to people watch. I may not be a professional counselor yet, but I am a very accomplished people watcher.
If you are quiet enough, and let youself blend into the bustle of a busy coffee house or small lunch place, people stop noticing you and you can notice them all you want. Psychology is based on a presupposition of normal behavior, which is interesting, because my people watching skills tell me there is no such thing as a normal person- just crazy people who behave "normally." Give that one some thought. That means I am outright finger pointing at everyone as crazy and posers, but don't worry: if everyone is a crazy and a poser, there are no such labels anyway. They only exist in my own mental filing system.
Psychology has shifted in many theoretical approaches from normal behavior to adaptive behavior. I like the latter defenition better. Adaptive behavior doesn't imply homogeneity, and people are definately not that. Domestic violence- the spider and the fly (a good read, so I'm told, I'll let you know). Interpersonal relationships may be the worst way to understand someone, and at the same time the best way we know how. Instead of relating to norms which may not be real anyway, it is more useful to relate a person to our own frame of reference. At least we know the most about ourselves (how Cartesian, sigh.)
Seriously though we already do it. Someone stands us up, we are pissed or not based on our own frame of reference. What happens when our own frame of reference becomes confused or faulty and we justify things we may not otherwise? First we realize it, which, given the stipulations may be impossible. If we (amazingly) can do that, we seek out help from others (counselors?) and hope that their frame of reference can help us understand where we need to be, without letting that person tell us what to do or adapting their philosophy. Sound impossible? Don't worry counselors. That is what theory is for. Someone elses' over-thought, under-researched paradigm is a way to be objective yet functional. Seems to have worked so far, but are we copping out relying on someone else to explain the world to us instead of learning for ourselves? Does all that trust and dependence only require flimsy credentials and we accept them (i.e. a Ph.D?)
To bring the conversation full circle, here I am, sitting at Panera, wasting time writing my blog, people watching. People watching to the point that I have a whole stupid blog to write about it. What are other people thinking about me? I'm a poser, I'm a slacker, I don't work hard or have a full time job? I might think that about me if I was people watching someone else, but how far off would I be? I have two jobs, I am taking classes full time, and have a puppy and a boyfriend taking up all my free time. I started this blog with a point, and ended it by self example contradicting everything I just said. Main point: use yourself as a frame of reference, but not when you are contemplating yourself. I wonder if that will work.
Though I am guilty of such a display, I maintain that I am not the intellectual-student-young-person stereotype you find doing such things. Or maybe I am, and I just hate stereotypes. Anyway, the stereotype and associated labels are not why I am at Panera. I go for the free internet, because it is closer to my classes than my tiny apartment, and most importantly, to people watch. I may not be a professional counselor yet, but I am a very accomplished people watcher.
If you are quiet enough, and let youself blend into the bustle of a busy coffee house or small lunch place, people stop noticing you and you can notice them all you want. Psychology is based on a presupposition of normal behavior, which is interesting, because my people watching skills tell me there is no such thing as a normal person- just crazy people who behave "normally." Give that one some thought. That means I am outright finger pointing at everyone as crazy and posers, but don't worry: if everyone is a crazy and a poser, there are no such labels anyway. They only exist in my own mental filing system.
Psychology has shifted in many theoretical approaches from normal behavior to adaptive behavior. I like the latter defenition better. Adaptive behavior doesn't imply homogeneity, and people are definately not that. Domestic violence- the spider and the fly (a good read, so I'm told, I'll let you know). Interpersonal relationships may be the worst way to understand someone, and at the same time the best way we know how. Instead of relating to norms which may not be real anyway, it is more useful to relate a person to our own frame of reference. At least we know the most about ourselves (how Cartesian, sigh.)
Seriously though we already do it. Someone stands us up, we are pissed or not based on our own frame of reference. What happens when our own frame of reference becomes confused or faulty and we justify things we may not otherwise? First we realize it, which, given the stipulations may be impossible. If we (amazingly) can do that, we seek out help from others (counselors?) and hope that their frame of reference can help us understand where we need to be, without letting that person tell us what to do or adapting their philosophy. Sound impossible? Don't worry counselors. That is what theory is for. Someone elses' over-thought, under-researched paradigm is a way to be objective yet functional. Seems to have worked so far, but are we copping out relying on someone else to explain the world to us instead of learning for ourselves? Does all that trust and dependence only require flimsy credentials and we accept them (i.e. a Ph.D?)
To bring the conversation full circle, here I am, sitting at Panera, wasting time writing my blog, people watching. People watching to the point that I have a whole stupid blog to write about it. What are other people thinking about me? I'm a poser, I'm a slacker, I don't work hard or have a full time job? I might think that about me if I was people watching someone else, but how far off would I be? I have two jobs, I am taking classes full time, and have a puppy and a boyfriend taking up all my free time. I started this blog with a point, and ended it by self example contradicting everything I just said. Main point: use yourself as a frame of reference, but not when you are contemplating yourself. I wonder if that will work.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Random Musings
Watching one car tailgate another is like watching my dog follow me around when I’ve got a treat in my pocket.
In person conversations have been reduced to parking garages and check out lines.
Some ceiling lamps DEFINITELY look like nipples.
Running up hill is hard when you can’t see the top of the hill yet.
A venti coffee is too much coffee because caffeine makes me pee.
Everything is rational when rationalized.
State license plate slogan makers need to try harder.
Sometimes puppies pee the carpet.
And ruin new pdas.
And hump your pillows.
Or leg.
Biology is compartmentalized but thinking, thought and reason are on a spectrum. Question- How can I know anything about biology?
The ratio of people who do their job well to those who don’t is not enough to too many.
It sucks when you are falling asleep watching tv and the dog has hidden the remote.
Relationships are for kissing, not yelling.
Food is important.
So is sarcasm.
Glitter does not brush off- it is the herpes of craft supplies.
The weird ones are the normal ones.
Oil paint takes a long time to dry.
Qualify almost everything you say.
Pigeons are rats of the sky.
You probably owe me money. You should really get that to me.
What does paper documentation prove?
Big trees are beautiful.
Blame it on entropy.
Lock your doors at night only if you expect someone will try and break in.
Science is scattered and information is sloppy.
Some people are just rude.
Holding it is bad for you.
Girls belong in a maul.
Everything needs a soundtrack.
The clock moves most slowly while you’re watching it.
In person conversations have been reduced to parking garages and check out lines.
Some ceiling lamps DEFINITELY look like nipples.
Running up hill is hard when you can’t see the top of the hill yet.
A venti coffee is too much coffee because caffeine makes me pee.
Everything is rational when rationalized.
State license plate slogan makers need to try harder.
Sometimes puppies pee the carpet.
And ruin new pdas.
And hump your pillows.
Or leg.
Biology is compartmentalized but thinking, thought and reason are on a spectrum. Question- How can I know anything about biology?
The ratio of people who do their job well to those who don’t is not enough to too many.
It sucks when you are falling asleep watching tv and the dog has hidden the remote.
Relationships are for kissing, not yelling.
Food is important.
So is sarcasm.
Glitter does not brush off- it is the herpes of craft supplies.
The weird ones are the normal ones.
Oil paint takes a long time to dry.
Qualify almost everything you say.
Pigeons are rats of the sky.
You probably owe me money. You should really get that to me.
What does paper documentation prove?
Big trees are beautiful.
Blame it on entropy.
Lock your doors at night only if you expect someone will try and break in.
Science is scattered and information is sloppy.
Some people are just rude.
Holding it is bad for you.
Girls belong in a maul.
Everything needs a soundtrack.
The clock moves most slowly while you’re watching it.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Facades, communication and how well we really know each other
When I was in college, I worked on a paint crew painting dorms all summer. When you are painting, there is a lot of freed up mental space to talk and think about things. One summer, my boss, Milton, introduced me to a theory he called the "mirror theory." It's not revolutionary, but it has stuck with me. The theory basically is this: the way you feel about someone else is the way they feel about you. My immediate reaction to this information was, "S***! They know that I don't like them!?"
Special cases aside, people are usually "nice" to each other. "I like your shoes," "How was your weekend," "How have you been," and similar comments, are shared between casual friends and coworkers all the time. Assuming we know how our close friends feel about us- what about everyone else? Are these comments sincere, or are they just a convenient cover up for calculated animosity? Don't tell me you don't care, because even if you're like me and say that, you still do a little. Do people I am nice to but don't like, feel and act the same way towards me? I mean, it's fine if I secretly don't like someone, but for them to feel that way about me when I'm being perfectly fakely nice is outrageous.
Ever find yourself secretly disliking someone (to varying degrees) one second, until they say something to you like "Nice shoes!" and you like them again? Are they just playing nice too by using tried and true expressions to "listen" to and "flatter" you? If they are, that's infuriating. Only I am allowed to do that because obviously noone has any reasons to dislike me (whereas people who I dislike clearly I have reasons to dislike, such as, they're mean). I've written posts before about people not saying what they mean and being tactful, etc, and beaten that subject to death, I feel. However, as one of the most sarcastic and skeptical person of others I know (until I get to know them, of course), can even I be fooled by someone who secretly doesn't like me?
Friction exists, even between people who are perfectly nice to each other, just because their personalities are different. Do we ingest this and magnify it to the point where we take it personally that someone could dislike us for "no reason"? I mean really, what's the big deal when statistically it's just gonna happen? Why can't we just fake it to fool the friction?
Special cases aside, people are usually "nice" to each other. "I like your shoes," "How was your weekend," "How have you been," and similar comments, are shared between casual friends and coworkers all the time. Assuming we know how our close friends feel about us- what about everyone else? Are these comments sincere, or are they just a convenient cover up for calculated animosity? Don't tell me you don't care, because even if you're like me and say that, you still do a little. Do people I am nice to but don't like, feel and act the same way towards me? I mean, it's fine if I secretly don't like someone, but for them to feel that way about me when I'm being perfectly fakely nice is outrageous.
Ever find yourself secretly disliking someone (to varying degrees) one second, until they say something to you like "Nice shoes!" and you like them again? Are they just playing nice too by using tried and true expressions to "listen" to and "flatter" you? If they are, that's infuriating. Only I am allowed to do that because obviously noone has any reasons to dislike me (whereas people who I dislike clearly I have reasons to dislike, such as, they're mean). I've written posts before about people not saying what they mean and being tactful, etc, and beaten that subject to death, I feel. However, as one of the most sarcastic and skeptical person of others I know (until I get to know them, of course), can even I be fooled by someone who secretly doesn't like me?
Friction exists, even between people who are perfectly nice to each other, just because their personalities are different. Do we ingest this and magnify it to the point where we take it personally that someone could dislike us for "no reason"? I mean really, what's the big deal when statistically it's just gonna happen? Why can't we just fake it to fool the friction?
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Thoughts about tact
Who decided we couldn't tell people what they need to hear? Even more importantly, who decided people can't handle the truth? In reality, when was not hearing the truth up front easier for anybody? I can think of only one example:
Friend with terrible haircut: Do you like my haircut?
Me: It's adorable!
Friend with terrible haircut: Oh phew because I wasn't sure and there is nothing I can do until it grows out, anyway.
Friend with grown out terrible haircut several months later: I'm going to get a haircut, I was thinking of just getting the same (terrible haircut).
Me several months later: You know, I really like it long better. I wasn't a huge fan of that old cut.
Friend with grown out terrible haircut several months later: Yeah, maybe you're right.
Otherwise, cut the s**t and just say it like it is. Except we're not allowed because people's feelings will get "hurt." Except that really isn't the problem, is it? The problem is we can't say it like it is because it could give the other person the chance to call us insensitive or relocate their anger, frustration or whatever, to us.
Tact is something I have mixed feelings about in counseling. Obviously, there is a time and a place. If someone is suicidal, you don't say, "You idiot, don't do such a dumb thing." Instead, you tactfully convey the same message in a less disturbing way such as, "Do you have a plan/means/etc?" See, the suicidal person has a REASON to be feeling fragile and require tact on our part. They have a serious mental disturbance or trauma or what have you dominating their thoughts and honestly need some non-judgemental sensitivity; but what I want to know is when did that behavior become ubiquitous? When did people who really DO need to be called out on their s**t deserve tact as well? You know as well as I do if you don't follow the tact social norm you will be called a b**ch, insensitive, angry or whatever negative adjectives come to mind for the complainer. Don't they know that being honest is only the best for them, even though it may be harder for you to say?
Of course this tactful tangent originated in an experience with my apparent tactlessness that got me thinking. Clearly, I am not a fan of "tactfulness." Now that my reasoning is crystal clear, what I want to know is, what am I missing? Why can't people be pissed off? If they did something stupid, or are asked a question in openness and honesty, they can be upset and that's ok. It gets stupid when they are upset at you like you are an a-hole for communicating without the fluff. I mean seriously- they would have known what you meant with or without the tact, so why bother with the formality and fakeness? You might as well be as obvious as, "No offense, but....." Of course you are about to say something offensive, you are just also providing a disclaimer so you don't have to take responsibility for it. Lame, right?
Friend with terrible haircut: Do you like my haircut?
Me: It's adorable!
Friend with terrible haircut: Oh phew because I wasn't sure and there is nothing I can do until it grows out, anyway.
Friend with grown out terrible haircut several months later: I'm going to get a haircut, I was thinking of just getting the same (terrible haircut).
Me several months later: You know, I really like it long better. I wasn't a huge fan of that old cut.
Friend with grown out terrible haircut several months later: Yeah, maybe you're right.
Otherwise, cut the s**t and just say it like it is. Except we're not allowed because people's feelings will get "hurt." Except that really isn't the problem, is it? The problem is we can't say it like it is because it could give the other person the chance to call us insensitive or relocate their anger, frustration or whatever, to us.
Tact is something I have mixed feelings about in counseling. Obviously, there is a time and a place. If someone is suicidal, you don't say, "You idiot, don't do such a dumb thing." Instead, you tactfully convey the same message in a less disturbing way such as, "Do you have a plan/means/etc?" See, the suicidal person has a REASON to be feeling fragile and require tact on our part. They have a serious mental disturbance or trauma or what have you dominating their thoughts and honestly need some non-judgemental sensitivity; but what I want to know is when did that behavior become ubiquitous? When did people who really DO need to be called out on their s**t deserve tact as well? You know as well as I do if you don't follow the tact social norm you will be called a b**ch, insensitive, angry or whatever negative adjectives come to mind for the complainer. Don't they know that being honest is only the best for them, even though it may be harder for you to say?
Of course this tactful tangent originated in an experience with my apparent tactlessness that got me thinking. Clearly, I am not a fan of "tactfulness." Now that my reasoning is crystal clear, what I want to know is, what am I missing? Why can't people be pissed off? If they did something stupid, or are asked a question in openness and honesty, they can be upset and that's ok. It gets stupid when they are upset at you like you are an a-hole for communicating without the fluff. I mean seriously- they would have known what you meant with or without the tact, so why bother with the formality and fakeness? You might as well be as obvious as, "No offense, but....." Of course you are about to say something offensive, you are just also providing a disclaimer so you don't have to take responsibility for it. Lame, right?
Saturday, April 26, 2008
The damn things you have to do
Sometimes I hear myself saying, "but I just can't this" or "I just have to that." Of course, the obvious question becomes, "Says who?"
The equally obvious answer-history, politics, religion, culture and all that aside- says noone. When do you draw the line, and when do you just tell yourself not to?
Someone says somethng to you and your knee-jerk reaction is, "Well that was rude/inappropriate/whatever." Yet, we rarely, if ever, say anything. Even if the person is emotionally close enough to us where we might feel comfortable discussing virtually everything, we don't tell them the comment was out of line- or, if we do, we feel guilty like "I'm making a big deal over nothing" because the other person is storming, fuming or insulted. The kicker is- THEY initiated it in the first place, didn't they?
How do stupid situations like this arise in the first place? So many unspoken etiquette rules and regulations that we somehow learnt? It's like a secret club of covert operations designed to guilt trip us for calling people out when they need to be.
Right?
The equally obvious answer-history, politics, religion, culture and all that aside- says noone. When do you draw the line, and when do you just tell yourself not to?
Someone says somethng to you and your knee-jerk reaction is, "Well that was rude/inappropriate/whatever." Yet, we rarely, if ever, say anything. Even if the person is emotionally close enough to us where we might feel comfortable discussing virtually everything, we don't tell them the comment was out of line- or, if we do, we feel guilty like "I'm making a big deal over nothing" because the other person is storming, fuming or insulted. The kicker is- THEY initiated it in the first place, didn't they?
How do stupid situations like this arise in the first place? So many unspoken etiquette rules and regulations that we somehow learnt? It's like a secret club of covert operations designed to guilt trip us for calling people out when they need to be.
Right?
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Behavioral Psychology-Does it work?
I have to admit I'm a fan of the cognitive/behavioral perspective. It's so "now." But, like so many things, does it really work, or does it just kinda work, sometimes?
Ever notice that most treatment options for anything are kind of a crapshoot? Even the treatment cure-all of the twentieth century (antibiotics) doesn't always work, and is losing effectiveness. Does everything work without qualifiers, or does everything work "all the time, except for when it doesn't"?
There is a huge body of research and dedicated professional users of behavioral psychology. A rat will push a lever if you give it treats, according to Skinner- sometimes. Anyway, the lever pushing frequency will increase. Is that really practical if it were a treatment solution, or is that just the best we can do? We use antidepressants, for example, because they "work," but only in 50% of people, or 50% of the time.
How long should it take to potty train a dog? I have a four month old puppy named Zorro. I have had him for two or three-ish months. This morning I woke up to his barking, because he pooped the floor. This is really a step sideways because he didn't use to poop the floor, only pee; now he doesn't pee the floor, only poop.
I am a student of psychology. I have taken my behavioral psychology classes. I know basic classic conditioning, operant conditioning, shaping, and whatnot. I know how to use aversive conditions, reward systems, controlled scheduling, random scheduling and other types of enforcement. I made mental flowcharts and read everything I could get my hands on to potty train this dog, and still, he poops. And pees. Everywhere.
You might say the problem is constancy. I'm not using the same technique long enough- I'm just confusing him. Wrong. I thought of that. I have made few if any major changes, with small alterations over the course of two months. I am at my wit's end. He always goes outside when I take him, but sometimes he just goes inside. This ratio of inside to outside is not changing. It's been around 1:3 for the past two months.
Behavioral training sort-of works. It also sort-of doesn't; which, if you think about it, in terms of disproving any theory, means it doesnt. Dammit.
Ever notice that most treatment options for anything are kind of a crapshoot? Even the treatment cure-all of the twentieth century (antibiotics) doesn't always work, and is losing effectiveness. Does everything work without qualifiers, or does everything work "all the time, except for when it doesn't"?
There is a huge body of research and dedicated professional users of behavioral psychology. A rat will push a lever if you give it treats, according to Skinner- sometimes. Anyway, the lever pushing frequency will increase. Is that really practical if it were a treatment solution, or is that just the best we can do? We use antidepressants, for example, because they "work," but only in 50% of people, or 50% of the time.
How long should it take to potty train a dog? I have a four month old puppy named Zorro. I have had him for two or three-ish months. This morning I woke up to his barking, because he pooped the floor. This is really a step sideways because he didn't use to poop the floor, only pee; now he doesn't pee the floor, only poop.
I am a student of psychology. I have taken my behavioral psychology classes. I know basic classic conditioning, operant conditioning, shaping, and whatnot. I know how to use aversive conditions, reward systems, controlled scheduling, random scheduling and other types of enforcement. I made mental flowcharts and read everything I could get my hands on to potty train this dog, and still, he poops. And pees. Everywhere.
You might say the problem is constancy. I'm not using the same technique long enough- I'm just confusing him. Wrong. I thought of that. I have made few if any major changes, with small alterations over the course of two months. I am at my wit's end. He always goes outside when I take him, but sometimes he just goes inside. This ratio of inside to outside is not changing. It's been around 1:3 for the past two months.
Behavioral training sort-of works. It also sort-of doesn't; which, if you think about it, in terms of disproving any theory, means it doesnt. Dammit.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Some skepticism for thought- Unfairness and clicheability
Unfairness.
How many jobs in the world wouldn't exist if things/people were fair? Houses shouldn't burn down, or if they should, they should, so no firemen/women. Movies would be returned, grades wouldn't be questionable, congress wouldn't be necessary. My conclusion is this: the single unifying factor of life is unfairness. Though anything can be debated around in circles and beaten to death with mental logic, cognitive reasoning, rationalizations, intellect, philosophy (here is just another example of my point) Things are rarely, if ever, fair. This tangent actually brings me to my next point- clicheness.
Clicheness
People always think they are so damn original. My favorite is the circular reasoning trap. SO many historical figures and prominent people fall prey to this crap, in an effort to sound profound, intelligent, and insightful. Really, they have said nothing. Ever heard circular reasoning discussed in a classroom? You may have been told a supporting claim, for example, is not relevant or useful because it is circular. For example, I have been told blondes are "dumb," and oh so sweetly reminded of my blondeness. To which I might respond, "Give me an example. Why am I dumb?" The circular answer is, of course, because I'm blonde.
Circular reasoning in search of profound statements is equally useless. Let's go as far back as to Descartes' "I think, therefore I am" philosophy. How do you know you exist, Descartes?
"Because I think"
And how do you know you are doing the thinking, Descartes?
"Because it is me who exists," and so on.
I realize this example is a bit of a stretch, but go with me. Let's press on. JFK said, "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." Sounds profound, right? Let me give you one more example. This one is purely an example of such a cliche constructed for the argument: "If you do not take care of your children, how can your children ever take care of you?"
Still impressed? The formula is simple. Take an expression. Anything that on it's own sounds great. Let's take an overused peice of advice, for example, "You must take control of your life." Whatever that means, is clearly speculative and individualized, but anyway, continuing on with the analogy. Take this expression, and say it once. Next, simply switch the subject/verb combinations in the sentence: "Your life must take control of you." Great. you're on your way. Now say each phrase, one after the other, and prepare to sound profound," You must take control of your life, or your life must take control of you." Genius.
If you should still choose to buy into and use such pointless expressions, at least do me and the rest of intelligent world a favor, and spare us the condescending tone. The truth is, you are not a genius for repeating it. Whoever came up with it is not a genius either. You are teaching noone anything and only flaunting a need to be seen as useful and deep. Trust me, and stop it now, or one of these days you will experience someone elses uncontrollable projectile vomit because of the profundity of your statement.
How many jobs in the world wouldn't exist if things/people were fair? Houses shouldn't burn down, or if they should, they should, so no firemen/women. Movies would be returned, grades wouldn't be questionable, congress wouldn't be necessary. My conclusion is this: the single unifying factor of life is unfairness. Though anything can be debated around in circles and beaten to death with mental logic, cognitive reasoning, rationalizations, intellect, philosophy (here is just another example of my point) Things are rarely, if ever, fair. This tangent actually brings me to my next point- clicheness.
Clicheness
People always think they are so damn original. My favorite is the circular reasoning trap. SO many historical figures and prominent people fall prey to this crap, in an effort to sound profound, intelligent, and insightful. Really, they have said nothing. Ever heard circular reasoning discussed in a classroom? You may have been told a supporting claim, for example, is not relevant or useful because it is circular. For example, I have been told blondes are "dumb," and oh so sweetly reminded of my blondeness. To which I might respond, "Give me an example. Why am I dumb?" The circular answer is, of course, because I'm blonde.
Circular reasoning in search of profound statements is equally useless. Let's go as far back as to Descartes' "I think, therefore I am" philosophy. How do you know you exist, Descartes?
"Because I think"
And how do you know you are doing the thinking, Descartes?
"Because it is me who exists," and so on.
I realize this example is a bit of a stretch, but go with me. Let's press on. JFK said, "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." Sounds profound, right? Let me give you one more example. This one is purely an example of such a cliche constructed for the argument: "If you do not take care of your children, how can your children ever take care of you?"
Still impressed? The formula is simple. Take an expression. Anything that on it's own sounds great. Let's take an overused peice of advice, for example, "You must take control of your life." Whatever that means, is clearly speculative and individualized, but anyway, continuing on with the analogy. Take this expression, and say it once. Next, simply switch the subject/verb combinations in the sentence: "Your life must take control of you." Great. you're on your way. Now say each phrase, one after the other, and prepare to sound profound," You must take control of your life, or your life must take control of you." Genius.
If you should still choose to buy into and use such pointless expressions, at least do me and the rest of intelligent world a favor, and spare us the condescending tone. The truth is, you are not a genius for repeating it. Whoever came up with it is not a genius either. You are teaching noone anything and only flaunting a need to be seen as useful and deep. Trust me, and stop it now, or one of these days you will experience someone elses uncontrollable projectile vomit because of the profundity of your statement.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Thoughts about a tragedy...
This is not specifically regarding ethical concerns, but it is related to important considerations in pursuing a career in helping. As many of you know, today, April 16, 2008, is the one year anniversary of the Virginia Tech shootings. Many of us lost close friends, or even family members in this tragic event. Many more of us have been affected by the tragedy. I want to remember the victims of this tragedy and those hurt in the aftermath today. I also want to consider the tragedy of the assailant.
Though I am not one devoid of feelings of anger towards the pain this young man caused to many thousands of people, it has occurred to me on several occasions the tragedy of his own life. He was clearly in need of psychological services that he did not receive. Whether or not he recieved bad care, not enough care, or care too late, is debatable- but consider the mental state of someone to take his own life and the life of his classmates. In remembering Virginia Tech, I want us to feel empowered as counselors to see a need for change. I want us to see our need in the community as mental health professionals. I want us to take our roles seriously, recognizing the power of the human mind (cognitively and physiologically). We are an important wave of the future. We are needed, we are necessary; we matter.
Just some motivation to help students get through the stressful end of the semester.
Please take a moment today in memory of those who were lost.
Though I am not one devoid of feelings of anger towards the pain this young man caused to many thousands of people, it has occurred to me on several occasions the tragedy of his own life. He was clearly in need of psychological services that he did not receive. Whether or not he recieved bad care, not enough care, or care too late, is debatable- but consider the mental state of someone to take his own life and the life of his classmates. In remembering Virginia Tech, I want us to feel empowered as counselors to see a need for change. I want us to see our need in the community as mental health professionals. I want us to take our roles seriously, recognizing the power of the human mind (cognitively and physiologically). We are an important wave of the future. We are needed, we are necessary; we matter.
Just some motivation to help students get through the stressful end of the semester.
Please take a moment today in memory of those who were lost.
An ethical dilemma...
An ethical dilemma-when a counseling agency needs counseling: To lie, or not to lie.
If students really knew what went on internally in some counseling offices, they might be even LESS motivated to go than they currently are. Being a student of counseling psychology myself, I am put in an ethical quandary- should someone tell the truth and risk discouraging students in need of counseling more than current stigma, or keep their mouth shut and pretend there are no problems, holding no one ethically responsible for inappropriate decision making? The question is what is more ethical? Leaving the truth of a negative and hypocritical setting uncovered, or ruin a reputation and build more stigma? I caution those who read this not to reject counseling as a process, but rather to be cautious about counseling practices protecting client rights. The following is an ethical dilemma recently told to me concerning this issue. Details of the story have been altered to protect confidentiality.
A public, state- funded counseling office is holding interviews for new counselors. They are specifically seeking someone to cover alcohol and substance abuse counseling. After a lengthy and thorough interviewing process, they finally select who they believe is the most viable candidate, and this person, Jo, takes the job. During the first few months of Jo’s employment, a private situation arises between one of the other members of the office, Ryan, also a new employee, and Jo. Off the clock, on a birthday jaunt through downtown D.C., Jo takes Ryan to meet some of Jo’s friends. During this get together, unbeknownst to Jo, Ryan is given a date rape drug by one of Jo’s friends. Later that evening, as they are traveling downtown, Ryan becomes very ill and incoherent because of the drug. Jo, thinking Ryan has had too much to drink, drops Ryan off at a fast food restaurant and continues Jo’s night of celebration. Ryan ends up transported via ambulance to the hospital. A week later Ryan returns to work as usual, being careful to avoid Jo and any further incident. However, Jo begins harassing Ryan and threatening Ryan over the DC incident. Ryan, feeling uncomfortable and afraid to go to work, explains the situation in full to Jo, in hopes that Jo would understand and leave the issue alone. However, the threats continue in the workplace. Ryan continues going to work avoiding confrontation, and eventually the threats stop. A few months later, Ryan is informed by a supervisor that Ryan’s position will no longer be necessary to the counseling office. Jo, as the lead alcohol and substance abuse counselor is receiving more clients than Jo can handle, and needs another counselor to help share the load. Ryan is informed Ryan is welcome to apply to this job to be Jo’s assistant, but otherwise, needs to make future employment plans. Ryan’s supervisor is aware of the situation between Ryan and Jo, however since Ryan’s supervisor delivered the message about Jo’s future assistant to Ryan, Ryan feels it is useless to bring the DC issue up with Ryan’s supervisor. Ryan decides to move on to a different agency.
What is more ethical? Does Ryan let sleeping dogs lie, holding no one accountable? Or should Ryan follow the situation to an end, risking Ryan and Jo’s professional status, as well as the reputation of the agency? Who, if anyone, is at fault, and how should the situation be handled?
If students really knew what went on internally in some counseling offices, they might be even LESS motivated to go than they currently are. Being a student of counseling psychology myself, I am put in an ethical quandary- should someone tell the truth and risk discouraging students in need of counseling more than current stigma, or keep their mouth shut and pretend there are no problems, holding no one ethically responsible for inappropriate decision making? The question is what is more ethical? Leaving the truth of a negative and hypocritical setting uncovered, or ruin a reputation and build more stigma? I caution those who read this not to reject counseling as a process, but rather to be cautious about counseling practices protecting client rights. The following is an ethical dilemma recently told to me concerning this issue. Details of the story have been altered to protect confidentiality.
A public, state- funded counseling office is holding interviews for new counselors. They are specifically seeking someone to cover alcohol and substance abuse counseling. After a lengthy and thorough interviewing process, they finally select who they believe is the most viable candidate, and this person, Jo, takes the job. During the first few months of Jo’s employment, a private situation arises between one of the other members of the office, Ryan, also a new employee, and Jo. Off the clock, on a birthday jaunt through downtown D.C., Jo takes Ryan to meet some of Jo’s friends. During this get together, unbeknownst to Jo, Ryan is given a date rape drug by one of Jo’s friends. Later that evening, as they are traveling downtown, Ryan becomes very ill and incoherent because of the drug. Jo, thinking Ryan has had too much to drink, drops Ryan off at a fast food restaurant and continues Jo’s night of celebration. Ryan ends up transported via ambulance to the hospital. A week later Ryan returns to work as usual, being careful to avoid Jo and any further incident. However, Jo begins harassing Ryan and threatening Ryan over the DC incident. Ryan, feeling uncomfortable and afraid to go to work, explains the situation in full to Jo, in hopes that Jo would understand and leave the issue alone. However, the threats continue in the workplace. Ryan continues going to work avoiding confrontation, and eventually the threats stop. A few months later, Ryan is informed by a supervisor that Ryan’s position will no longer be necessary to the counseling office. Jo, as the lead alcohol and substance abuse counselor is receiving more clients than Jo can handle, and needs another counselor to help share the load. Ryan is informed Ryan is welcome to apply to this job to be Jo’s assistant, but otherwise, needs to make future employment plans. Ryan’s supervisor is aware of the situation between Ryan and Jo, however since Ryan’s supervisor delivered the message about Jo’s future assistant to Ryan, Ryan feels it is useless to bring the DC issue up with Ryan’s supervisor. Ryan decides to move on to a different agency.
What is more ethical? Does Ryan let sleeping dogs lie, holding no one accountable? Or should Ryan follow the situation to an end, risking Ryan and Jo’s professional status, as well as the reputation of the agency? Who, if anyone, is at fault, and how should the situation be handled?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
