![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
[email protected]Shown: posts 1 to 16 of 16. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Crazy_Charlie on November 3, 2004, at 14:30:55
...you don't need anything more than to major in psychology to call yourself a psychologist? I have heard many people say that in the US it's enough to major, an dthen you can call yourself a psychologist. I don't know the university system in the U.S. very good, nor do I know anything about being a psychologist in the US. I'm curious because I am very interested in forensic psychology, and Europe is not half as far in their scientifics when it comes to forensic psychology as the U.S., so I might have to take some courses in the U.S. to manage to specialize.
In Norway, and also in the Netherlands where I live now... though to a lesser extent than in Norway, it is very difficult to become a psycholgist. Only those with the absolute best grades in the freshman year in psychology studies go further to the study where you at the end will be allowed to call yourself a psychologist (this title is protected by law in Norway, and the Netherlands). You don't really "major" in psychology, since it really is 6 years of pure psychology you are studying... even though you do write a thesis and all. Those six years are fixed with a whole bunch of subjects, all in the field of clinical psychology (clinical psychology, clinical child psychology, clinical neuropsychology, forensic psychology, personality psychology, social psychology, organizationalpsychology... you name it). We also have a year of internal practice at the clinic attached to the university, and 6 months of external practice...
It is possible to major in psychology in Norway, but that's a total different study, and you are not allowed to work as a therapist, unless you are in a group with other people with different backgrounds within therapy. So for me it's confusing if almost anyone can call themselves a psychologist or therapist just like that.... who is keeping charge and making sure that there is a certain guarantee of the security of the client? I mean, it is impossible to totally ensure a client, but still... we have so many hours in practicing how to recieve a client, how to treat a client, what you shouldnt say and what you should say etcetc...
Is it really true?
Posted by mandinka on November 3, 2004, at 17:17:49
In reply to Psychologists in US, is it true that..., posted by Crazy_Charlie on November 3, 2004, at 14:30:55
Okay, here's my totally layperson take on the issue. It is not a degree that makes a therapist! To be a good therapist you first and foremost have to be a good, empathic and as free from neurosis person as possible. This means that you should get a lot of therapy yourself! The best therapists are the ones who truly know themselves and through this knowledge can connect to their clients. So - years of GOOD therapy, preferably with several therapists, so different aspects of you will emerge and different approaches are experienced first-hand. Only after that, theory is important and third but certainly not least - practice, practice, practice under supervion.
A person with a degree but litte true (that means NOT simply intellectual) understanding of themselves is very dangerous. A degree gives you only intellectual understanding of your issues and an illussion of control over them. Many sick people know exactly what is wrong with them on an intellectual level but that doesn't make them one bit healthier.
After that I think a therapist should be always under supervision and in more or less frequent therapy. The process of learning about yourself never ends.
Posted by pegasus on November 3, 2004, at 17:37:32
In reply to Psychologists in US, is it true that..., posted by Crazy_Charlie on November 3, 2004, at 14:30:55
Well, to be a licensed clinical psychologist in the U.S. you need to have a Ph.D. and a certain number of hours of clinical experience after that degree. So, I suppose someone could call themself a "psychologist" without that experience but they wouldn't be licensed.
In some states it is possible to practice psychotherapy without a license of any type (well, in Colorado, anyway). In most states to call yourself a psychotherapist, you do need to have a license, which means that you have completed a graduate degree and a number of supervised clinical hours.
pegasus
Posted by gardenergirl on November 3, 2004, at 18:04:26
In reply to Re: Psychologists in US, is it true that..., posted by pegasus on November 3, 2004, at 17:37:32
To add to pegasus' post...in my state you must be a licensed psychologist, meaning a doctoral degree (PhD or PsyD) and appropriate post-doctoral supervised work, and pass a board exam in order to call yourself a psychologist. You can use the term therapist as a licensed clinical counselor, but psychologist is reserved for doctoral level trained and licensed professionals.
gg
Posted by Crazy_Charlie on November 4, 2004, at 1:48:44
In reply to Re: Psychologists in US, is it true that..., posted by mandinka on November 3, 2004, at 17:17:49
I agree on some thing, and disagree on some things. Of course it's not the degree that is making you a therapist, but still I find it weird that who ever wants to can just call themselves a therapist. The relationship between a client and a therapist is so vulnerable that some kind of guarantee for the person would actually be good.
By going on the university to become a psychologist in Norway, one of the things they are pushing you to do is exactly what you say: go in therapy yourself. At the study you are at any time provided with a therapist if you need it, without any costs. Another thing you do is having sessions with clients where an experienced therapist is sitting behind a oneway mirror watching you, and you also tape the session on video (this is of course with full consent from the client). After each session the student and the experienced therapist goes through the tape and looks at what the student did that was good and what he/she should work with.
A student who is repeatedly saying or doing things that is hurtingt the client, or in any other behaves inaproriate, will first be recommended to quit. If the student doesn't change he wont be allowed to continue with th eclient, and he wont get the course accepted. All courses has to be accepted for you to become a therapist.
I do NOT agree with that to become a good therapist you would have to learn it through having several different theraists. That is definately NOt good enough.
I also do not agree that a degree is only intellectuall understanding, espescially not when the degree includes 1,5 years with observated working with clients, and a course running over 2,5 years leaded by two experienced therapists about how to know yourself. All lecturs are held by experienced psychologists and researchers in the field, I don't think going in therapy with the same psychologist leading the course will give you the same insight of how it is to be a psychologist and what you should be aware of.
Becoming a therapist without a proper background in the field is at least irresponsible. We have proper tutorials in ethics, attachments to clients an dclients attachemnts to you, pros and cons in therapy etcetc. How can you learn all this from just going in therapy yourself? I have had five totally different therapists in my life time, but going to that 6 year study taught me more about myself than any of those therapists managed in any session.
The study in Norway is exactly what you say, practice practice and practice, under supervision. I am trained in short term psychodynamic approaches, integartive approaches, cognitive approacehs, forensic approaches, CBT approaches, humanistic approaches etc. How can you get this variability unless you are guided by someone who is experienced in the field?
I do see that not everyone on the study would make a good therapist, and I do see that some poeople who are not getting a place on the study would make a great therapist. But that is not my point....
I'm sorry, but I think you got more upset with defending something I don't understand than really reading my post. I hope this made it more clear.
Posted by Crazy_Charlie on November 4, 2004, at 1:51:08
In reply to Re: Psychologists in US, is it true that..., posted by pegasus on November 3, 2004, at 17:37:32
Thank you very much for your answer.
That sounds a bit better than the rumours are here in Europe about psychologists in US. I prefer finding out how things really are than believening in rumours :-)
Posted by Crazy_Charlie on November 4, 2004, at 1:53:25
In reply to Re: Psychologists in US, is it true that..., posted by gardenergirl on November 3, 2004, at 18:04:26
Ah yeah, that was what I was I was hoping for. That means that at least in your state it is pretty much the sam eas in Norway. To clear up a bit, the Norwegian degree that leads to you becoming a psychologist is accepted as a Ph. D. in the US.
Posted by mandinka on November 4, 2004, at 4:14:42
In reply to I think you are missing my point... » mandinka, posted by Crazy_Charlie on November 4, 2004, at 1:48:44
The point I was trying to get across is: a person that hasn't been through decent therapy won't be "clean" enough to deal with the problems of other people - unless of course s/he had the luck of having a really good childhood, good parenting and therefore is pretty neurotic-free. Otherwise his or her own unresolved problems will tend to get in the way and no amount of knowledge and training can prevent this in the long run. Empathy and mental health cannot be taught. Those who are damaged themselves will hurt their clients without even noticing it.
Just like you said - there are people who despite all the training continue to hurt their patients, no matter how much feedback they get. Training cannot heal one's core problems, hidden behind the barrier of repression where self-exploration that remains on the level of adult reasoning doesn't reach.
This is why I believe in regressive therapy and well-trained regressive therapists. No knowledge gained at the university can measure up to the visceral, intuitive understanding of human nature of someone who has truly delved into their own past, relived the repressed pain and diffused its neurotic charge. That is exactly why my T2, who has a MSW degree doesn't train people who themselves didn't go through several years of regressive therapy even if they have PhDs in clinical psychology.
The elimination process of education is helpful and so is hands-on training but at the end of the day it is the healthy personality of the therapist that makes the real difference. I had the impression from your previous post that you considered training, confirmed by a degree the best way to assess the therapist's worth. I stand corrected. I'm not saying that training isn't important and I completely agree that a quality-checking system should be in place, so irresponsible people are kept out of the loop. Indeed, practising psychotherapy without formal education IS weird.
If I were shopping for a therapist now, I'd like to know if they have training but the most important issue would be how much therapy they've had themselves, if they are still in therapy and under supervision, how open they are about their own past. Are they comfortable talking about it? A person that hides, has something to hide from his/herself. Such a defensive person is not a trustworthy therapist imo. This is what is important to me. Someone else can have of course a different point of view, different needs.
Posted by Crazy_Charlie on November 4, 2004, at 4:45:34
In reply to Re: I think you are missing my point..., posted by mandinka on November 4, 2004, at 4:14:42
I think we actually agree on most things ;-)
Though what seems to be closest to your heart is that therapists should have gone through therapy for a long period themselves. I agree with that, of different reasons than you, but I still agree.It is a subject that it very much discussed in recent psychology though, and some lines of therapy requires it (if you want to become a psychoanalyst for example, it is require dthat you go through several years of psychoanalysis yourself first). What I was reacting on was mor ethat I felt you were critizising me for something I didn't say, but I understand that you understood me different than planned. I am sorry about that :-)
I don't nesessarily agree that all neurosis is coming in the way of therapy though, and I doubt that persons which has never had a single problem in their whole life could actually become a good therapist. But that is my personal opinion, and I don't ahvea problem understanding that you disagree with that. I don't think that a neurosis should be labeled defensive in all situations either, but I find it a bit too perfectionistic to argue with you on that point, I'd rather accept that we have different opinions on certain areas.
I am happy you have found a therapist that is good for you though. I see that many people is not so lucky, I'm sad to say. Good luck for you :-)
Posted by mandinka on November 4, 2004, at 4:55:03
In reply to Re: I think you are missing my point..., posted by Crazy_Charlie on November 4, 2004, at 4:45:34
Well, I actually agree with you that a person that had problems in childhood is a good candidate for a therapist, because they will be able to understand the pain of their clients better. The only thing is they should have worked through enough of their own neurosis that it doesn't get in the way of the clients' process.
And I'm happy too that we agree on most things. :)
Posted by Crazy_Charlie on November 4, 2004, at 5:10:22
In reply to Re: I think you are missing my point..., posted by mandinka on November 4, 2004, at 4:55:03
Yeah, actually, when you mention it, I read a story on the board about a woman who had experienced something with her therapist that would perfectly illustrate your point, hehe. I wont repeat the story here since it's not my own and thereby not mine to tell, but I think I can explain what I mean without insulting someone. In my point of view that therapist brought her own personal opinion of unfaithfulness into the session in such a way that she hurt her patient. A trained and self reflected therapist would understand that the aim of therapy doesn't include her own feelings about unfaithfulness.
I have enjoyed the conversation between us, I think you have managed to correct my fadese of being arrogant in a very tolerable way ;-) I have been at many other internetboards where such discussions tends to end in immature personal attacks, but this is so much more constructive for your brainscells. You get to learn something about someone else AND yourself, what could be better?
I wonder though what you think of the certain aspect in hinduistic thought: that theres a difference between psychological age and chronological age. With this it's meant that some people seem all their life to be more mature than their chronological age would suggest, and thereby their psychological age is higher than their chronological age, and so they show more wisdom. It can also be the other way around, that someone is younger psychologically than chronologically.
I find this thought very fascinating, and if it is not in hinduism I am sorry... I think it is, but I am not good enough in the different religions to claim that it is. The thought is fascinating whatever religion it is :-)
Posted by mandinka on November 4, 2004, at 6:47:09
In reply to Re: I think you are missing my point..., posted by Crazy_Charlie on November 4, 2004, at 5:10:22
I'm not much into personal attacks anyway... ;) I'm always reminded of the last line from "Some Like It Hot" when Jack Lemmon's character in drag, Daphne, informs her boyfriend that she is in fact a he and the boyfriend replies completely unperturbed "Nobody's perfect!" Which describes me perfectly too. :)
I know the remark you are referring to. I posted a reply to this topic, because I found the T's reaction really inappropriate. I personally believe that the matters of good and evil that are the basis of moral judgment are just a reflection of a rather limited point of view. If you look into the reasons behind damaging behavior all that is found is suffering and its consequences. Imo the only proper response to this is compassion and empathy. At the very bottom there is no right or wrong just cause and effect. Hence judging and being moralistic proves to be another sign of neurosis that robs us of the ability to empathize with ourselves and others. Just like you rightly pointed out. Hey! We agree again! Now how cool is that?! ;)
I must say that I don't know much about religion either, although regressive therapies are strongly connected with buddism. I guess the matter of one's psychological age from the eastern perspective would be connected to the issue of reincarnation (how many lives have you lived) and karma. That's just my guess. From the scientific, western POV maturity and wisdom would be a function of unstunted psychological development and inherited personal qualities.
The pre and perinatal period are bound very strongly with spirituality. My T2 says that while reliving her conception she had an enormous sense of loss and anger that she was taken out of the oneness - the connection to God - and put in a womb of a mother with a whole lot of problems. Prenatal shock apparently breaks the connection with God within. I'm yet to find out about that.
There is a very interesting book by Kylea Taylor titled
"Ethics of Caring: Honoring the Web of Life in Our Professional Healing Relationships"
It combines buddism and psychology by tracing the steps of psychological and spiritual development of the client in regressive therapies and the therapist's responses to those developements in terms of chakras. Chakras are energy centers of which our consciousness is composed. This is a concept taken from kundalini yoga. As energy passes through the chakras (each has different properties), one gains a higher level of psychological developement. I really recommend this book. It has a very interesting take on issues of transference and countertransference and a nice fragment on the reasons why sex connected with spiritual longings is such a minefield in the client-therapist relationship.
Posted by Crazy_Charlie on November 4, 2004, at 7:28:51
In reply to Re: I think you are missing my point..., posted by mandinka on November 4, 2004, at 6:47:09
"I know the remark you are referring to. I posted a reply to this topic, because I found the T's reaction really inappropriate. I personally believe that the matters of good and evil that are the basis of moral judgment are just a reflection of a rather limited point of view. If you look into the reasons behind damaging behavior all that is found is suffering and its consequences. Imo the only proper response to this is compassion and empathy. At the very bottom there is no right or wrong just cause and effect. Hence judging and being moralistic proves to be another sign of neurosis that robs us of the ability to empathize with ourselves and others. Just like you rightly pointed out. Hey! We agree again! Now how cool is that?! ;)"
I thought I remembered you from somewhere. Yes, I totally agree with you. I was stunned when I read that T's comment. We actually get what you say in your post here repeated almost on a weekly basis in our study: "Imo the only proper response to this is compassion and empathy. At the very bottom there is no right or wrong just cause and effect". The last pasrt matches my opinion more than what we learned in our study (Hence judging and being moralistic proves to be another sign of neurosis that robs us of the ability to empathize with ourselves and others), but that doesn't mean it's wrong (allowing myself to be a tiny bit arrogant here, hehe).
I think my tutor at the university would have freaked out if I told him, but I've always wanted to try regressive therapy. I have mainly heard negative things about it, but I am careful letting other peoples negative judgements influence my own too much. I find any way of "alternative" treatment interesting as long as it's not potentially dangerous also when you are careful yourself.
Cheers :-)
Posted by daisym on November 4, 2004, at 13:31:31
In reply to Re: I think you are missing my point..., posted by Crazy_Charlie on November 4, 2004, at 5:10:22
<<<I wonder though what you think of the certain aspect in hinduistic thought: that theres a difference between psychological age and chronological age. With this it's meant that some people seem all their life to be more mature than their chronological age would suggest, and thereby their psychological age is higher than their chronological age, and so they show more wisdom. It can also be the other way around, that someone is younger psychologically than chronologically.
I want to jump in here because I think this is fascinating too. I was always told that I had a very mature out look, even at 10 years old. I think my psychological make up was completely influenced by the expectations of my parents. The wisdom I earned by these experiences was easily globalized, but I'm not convinced that this isn't a function of intellectualism...innate smarts that help you see which path to take or how to negotiate through someone else's emotions. As opposed to self-destructive behavior, which doesn't denote maturity. I would put forth now that my psychological age has deteriorated, that exploring the past in such a regressed way is effecting my overall ability to read people and situations and make mature decisions. Feels like emotional clouding.
Maybe your psychological maturity it is a nurture vs. nature argument:
My son, who is 13, has been an "old soul" his whole life. He is the kid who patted other babies when they cried when he was 2 and he is so empathic it is scary sometimes. He manages his feelings and yours in a very graceful way, honestly but with insight too. I'd love to take credit for this but given that I have two others who have been raised in the same house by the same parents, he is remarkably different. I will note that he seems to have traded resilency for this mature understanding of emotions and personal motives. He gets overwhelmed and overwrought. With him, we are teaching him to put up walls and protect himself.It is interesting to wonder who he might have been in a past life. He feels "female" if that makes any sense, while not being feminine at all.
Posted by terrics on November 7, 2004, at 9:13:27
In reply to Re: Psychologists in US, is it true that..., posted by gardenergirl on November 3, 2004, at 18:04:26
Hi, This is just something I heard. You can call yourself a psychologist after a bachelor's degree, but insurance won't reimburse you. The other thing I heard was that anyone can call themselves a therapist even without a degree, but insurance won't reimburse you. ?????
Posted by fallsfall on November 7, 2004, at 10:22:25
In reply to Re: Psychologists in US, is it true that..., posted by terrics on November 7, 2004, at 9:13:27
This tells about Psychologists:
http://www.mentalhealthchannel.net/psychologist.shtml
My understanding is that the title "Therapist" has no educational or licensing requirements.
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Psychology | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
[email protected]
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.