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?
Saturday, April 26, 2008
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)
