PhD/PsyD Percentage of billable hours for salary

[PsyDr]

See...sarcasm, it is not only written but accentuated with emojis to help solidify your intent.

Ah, so when you said you can tell people's tone by their word selection, that also doesn't apply to you.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[PSYDNEUROGUY]

We're objective all of the time. Like when we post the objective internship match, EPPP pass, and loan data. Them's the real deal, none o that alternative fact junk here.

Lmao...nicely done. We shall hold that one for a different conversation.

Since you feel free to tell me what to do, your way of doing things must be right. Yet you call me self righteous.

You call me "dingus" and "dick", yet you call me unprofessional and judgemental. And you call for objectivity.

So, rather than deflect, I already acknowledged that I am playing on your level, obviously just having a conversation about it, doesn't phase you one bit. I can admit that my actions right now, are unprofessional in that sense, they are in response to yours, which you fail to acknowledge. I suppose you can say I am doing some Salvador Minuchin family therapy style here.

 

[PSYDNEUROGUY]

Ah, so when you said you can tell people's tone by their word selection, that also doesn't apply to you.

Never said it didn't. I am accepting my behaviors and my actions, I accept my tone of voice I am using with you now. It is being done so for a purpose, to have a conversation. Sometimes, people opt for Gestalt or Rogers, sometimes you gotta bust a little Ellis or Salvado Minuchin.

 

[smalltownpsych]

Judgemental? Really, that's what you took home from his comments? So, pointing out behavior and treatment that is either counterproductive, unprofessional, rude or hurtful is now being coined as "judgmental." I guess leave it to psychologists to find a way to reframe a situation and spin it back onto the other person. Is there any objectivity on this forum?

I just thought that madeincanada thought PSYDR should be more helpful when providing information. The word "should" being a key to there being a judgment. I don't think they were calling attention to the type of behavior that you are referring to. Again very hyperbolic.

 

[PSYDNEUROGUY]

I just thought that madeincanada thought PSYDR should be more helpful when providing information. The word "should" being a key to there being a judgment. I don't think they were calling attention to the type of behavior that you are referring to. Again very hyperbolic.

Very true, I still don't think it is judge mental. I might have a supervisor tell me "you should do X with this client." It's not about judgement on her end, it is her providing insight from a different perspective. She allows for autonomous functioning and guides rather than directs. So, in context to this thread, when he said "should," he is providing an opinion from his observation and is guiding rather than directing. I would see a directive statement being "You NEED to do X with this client." He is simply observing that the comments made by PSYDR could be adjusted, or at least he might consider the advice.

And plenty of seasoned posters on here, including Wise, yourself and others, offer such opinions on a daily basis in context to a multitude of topics. This SHOULD not be any different. P

 

[smalltownpsych]

Very true, I still don't think it is judge mental. I might have a supervisor tell me "you should do X with this client." It's not about judgement on her end, it is her providing insight from a different perspective. She allows for autonomous functioning and guides rather than directs. So, in context to this thread, when he said "should," he is providing an opinion from his observation and is guiding rather than directing. I would see a directive statement being "You NEED to do X with this client." He is simply observing that the comments made by PSYDR could be adjusted, or at least he might consider the advice.

Could is a better non-judgmental word than should. "You could do this with a patient" leaves one open for an or you could do this. People should on themselves too much already, i'm not going to should on them too.

 

[PsyDr]

Never said it didn't. I am accepting my behaviors and my actions, I accept my tone of voice I am using with you now. It is being done so for a purpose, to have a conversation. Sometimes, people opt for Gestalt or Rogers, sometimes you gotta bust a little Ellis or Salvado Minuchin.

I gave advice, explained the reasoning behind the method, and asked about the reasoning behind someone's ideas.

You told me I should do things your way or not at all. That conveys that your righteous ideas are superior. Yet you called me self righteous.

You called me names and said I provoked you to do so. At no point did I call you names.

You are showing things are okay if you do them, but if I do them it's bad.

 

[PSYDNEUROGUY]

Could is a better non-judgmental word than should. "You could do this with a patient" leaves one open for an or you could do this. People should on themselves too much already, i'm not going to should on them too.

Perhaps...I think our profession lends itself to us spending hours on framing and phrasing words in way to have subtle effects on others. In this case, I see should and could being very close/ similar, depending on context.

 

[PsyDr]

Perhaps...I think our profession lends itself to us spending hours on framing and phrasing words in way to have subtle effects on others. In this case, I see should and could being very close/ similar, depending on context.

The subtlety behind words like "dingus" and "dick" astound me. Thank god you said it wasn't judgemental to call people out for using rude or hurtful word choices.

 

[smalltownpsych]

Perhaps...I think our profession lends itself to us spending hours on framing and phrasing words in way to have subtle effects on others. In this case, I see should and could being very close/ similar, depending on context.

I agree that we should not overanalyze small twists of phrase or verbiage, but should is a pretty powerful word and what I am talking about fits in several theoretical constructs, but as I was stating it comes directly from REBT. Some very small shifts in phrase or tone can have a significant impact. It is how I can walk into an agitated and aggressive patient's room that won't talk to any other staff and develop rapport. So I'll stick with trying not to say should.

 

[PSYDNEUROGUY]

I gave advice, explained the reasoning behind the method, and asked about the reasoning behind someone's ideas.

You told me I should do things your way or not at all. That conveys that your righteous ideas are superior. Yet you called me self righteous.

You called me names and said I provoked you to do so. At no point did I call you names.

You are showing things are okay if you do them, but if I do them it's bad.

1. Never told you to do things my way, it is a socially acceptable form of interaction not established by me, but most people who label themselves as adults. I call you self righteous due to your selection and phrasing of words. Almost every post I see, including this thread, you use lavish words and examples as a means to possibly demean or be condescending to others. You choose to do this, and no, it's not about you using a robust vocabulary, I think you know what your intentions are (i.e., upper bound, higher bound). When people go out of their way to use such specific or technical jargon in a conversation, it speaks more so about their personality. Psychologists are a mixed bunch, some have neuroscience backgrounds, others have AI backgrounds, some come from engineering backgrounds, etc. But a solid majority of us don't. (and no, I am not going to spend 20 minutes digging out APA-related references for this...as you said, we should do everything on our own).

2. I called you a dingus, and being a dick because of how you opt to treat other forum members, including myself (in the past). It's difficult to read posts these days when you respond to them and they are riddled with condescending tones and rudeness. So, I "had it." This is my way of saying "enough." I admit that my language is unprofessional, however, it doesn't seem to phase other people who are evidently content with being smilier to others. They may not state such a label such as "being a dick," but they state it in their overall responses, including yourself. And you are very correct, you did not call me names...I am "that guy" who has decided to be an advocate of the others who have also had issues with you on this forum. It seems like there are about 10-15 of you who band together, which, at least 4-5 of you are here on this thread alone (talk about a coalition).

3. I can see why you would think that I am showing what I am doing as okay (i.e., double standards). In that sense, you are correct, but in reality, my mission is to make a point. To call you out on stuff that is hurtful, or rude or condescending to others. In the past, I have tried to just "talk" with you on previous topics, but they lead nowhere, you end up taking your "high road" and belittle others in the process. So, do you think I, or other people enjoy such treatment? That is my point.

 

[PSYDNEUROGUY]

I agree that we should not overanalyze small twists of phrase or verbiage, but should is a pretty powerful word and what I am talking about fits in several theoretical constructs, but as I was stating it comes directly from REBT. Some very small shifts in phrase or tone can have a significant impact. It is how I can walk into an agitated and aggressive patient's room that won't talk to any other staff and develop rapport. So I'll stick with trying not to say should.

Ah, the musturbators. There is merit to this, so, I will rethink that for the future.

 

[WisNeuro]

Does anyone want to write up a screenplay for "Les Miserables" through the SDN lens? We, the SDN Old Guard cast as the French Aristocracy, and the new young upstarts overthrow us from our tyrannical reign of condescension, blunt advice, and reliance on factual outcome data?

"do you hear the people sing, singing the songs of offended men. It is the music of the people who will not be offended again!

 

[smalltownpsych]

 

[PsyDr]

1. Never told you to do things my way, it is a socially acceptable form of interaction not established by me, but most people who label themselves as adults. I call you self righteous due to your selection and phrasing of words. Almost every post I see, including this thread, you use lavish words and examples as a means to possibly demean or be condescending to others. You choose to do this, and no, it's not about you using a robust vocabulary, I think you know what your intentions are (i.e., upper bound, higher bound). When people go out of their way to use such specific or technical jargon in a conversation, it speaks more so about their personality. Psychologists are a mixed bunch, some have neuroscience backgrounds, others have AI backgrounds, some come from engineering backgrounds, etc. But a solid majority of us don't. (and no, I am not doing to spend 20 minutes digging out APA-related references for this...as you said, we should do everything on our own).

2. I called you a dingus, and being a dick because of how you opt to treat other forum members, including myself (in the past). It's difficult to read posts these days when you respond to them and they are riddled with condescending tones and rudeness. So, I "had it." This is my way of saying "enough." I admit that my language is unprofessional, however, it doesn't seem to phase other people who are evidently content with being smilier to others. They may not state such a label such as "being a dick," but they state it in their overall responses, including yourself. And you are very correct, you did not call me names...I am "that guy" who has decided to be an advocate of the others who have also had issues with you on this forum. It seems like there are about 10-15 of you who band together, which, at least 4-5 of you are here on this thread alone (talk about a coalition).

3. I can see why you would think that I am showing what I am doing as okay (i.e., double standards). In that sense, you are correct, but in reality, my mission is to make a point. To call you out on stuff that is hurtful, or rude or condescending to others. In the past, I have tried to just "talk" with you on previous topics, but they lead nowhere, you end up taking your "high road" and belittle others in the process. So, do you think I, or other people enjoy such treatment? That is my point.

So there's a double standard. When you do things your way, it's better and if I'm not willing to do it your way I just shouldn't do it at all (e.g., see your instructions to either post the links or do nothing at all). But I'm self righteous for not doing it your clearly superior way, even though I specifically said I am not an authoritative source and don't want to be seen as such.

You say it is unacceptable for me to use rude terms. But when you you call me names, you're using it as a process to help me. Mysteriously, you're sinking to my level even though I do not call people names. So it's okay for you, I provoked it, and I'm unprofessional.

When I help people in my specific way, or use specific language, it's bad. And I should just do things your way But I'm self righteous.

When I write things, you can tell my intentions and tone. When you do, it's just a mistake and you were misunderstood.

When you're doing things, it's because you're doing it because you believe in Salvadore Munichin. But my recent statements about theoretical orientation are not considered.



As a professional, I would urge you to consider the logic behind a set of double standards, and your own psychological processes that are influencing this behavior.

 

[erg923]

I didn't read all this, and I dont care to. But @PSYDR is indeed a knowledgeable man who provides valuable advice without BSing people or entertaining illusion/delusion or fallacy in thinking/expectations. You do this...you get that. You want A, B, C? Well, that ain't the way it works if you do X, Y, Z. If I want more, I gotta changed some things...and probably work some more, etc.

I usually don't want work to work all that much more, unfortunately. So sometimes I'm stuck.

I really don't think we need to implore him to be more "soft" or tolerant or "professional"...whatever that means. I have changed quite a few things because of his advice, from the way I write IMEs and workers comp peer review reports, to how I invest my money.

 

[erg923]

I also wish he would find a Mrs. PsyDr and have some PsyDr kids. I think he is missing out.