personality measure as part of assessment battery

[WisNeuro]

My favorite is the one from Billy Goats Gruff.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[PsyDr]

The movie Trollhunter had some good ones.

 

[WisNeuro]

The movie Trollhunter had some good ones.

Very good Norwegian film. Not as good as Dead Snow 2, though.

 

[barryggg]

I know you guys want to change the topic but...

Psychology in general = troll job

give me $200 for giving you obvious information. There is no greater trolling than that.

Sylvia Browne would be proud!

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Uh-huh. Please expert on all things psychology…please tell us more based on your training and research.

 

[barryggg]

Uh-huh. Please expert on all things psychology…please tell us more based on your training and research.

My training was more useful than yours..as I got more practical experience out of it than you. But both of our training's were largely a waste of time..especially yours.

 

[PsyDr]

T4C: don't you know that BarryGGG didn't need no fancy pants doctoral education, or practice based guidelines. He does what he wants! And psychics are apparently the same thing as psychologists where he is from....

 

[WisNeuro]

It's the school of R4al Lyfe, yo.

 

[BuckeyeLove]

give me $200 for giving you obvious information. There is no greater trolling than that.

maybe I should take up coaching?

 

[barryggg]

T4C: don't you know that BarryGGG didn't need no fancy pants doctoral education, or practice based guidelines. He does what he wants! And psychics are apparently the same thing as psychologists where he is from....

We are psychics in the sense of wasting people's time when most of their problems can be solved at a society level...we use people at their most difficult time. Child custody cases..there is no way a psychologist should have any say/reccomendations on that. It can be handled in a better manner.

Our 'treatments' are essentially conversations...our whole profession is all about buzzwords..but when you boil it all down..get rid of all the buzzwords 'treatment' 'program' 'method'...it's all a joke.

The profession of Psychology should be very very practical..in that sense, it can be very helpful..but it's not that..it tries to mascaraed as a legitimate field.

 

[barryggg]

maybe I should take up coaching?

I'm guessing you graduated with the B.S ?

 

[PsyDr]

We are psychics in the sense of wasting people's time when most of their problems can be solved at a society level...we use people at their most difficult time. Child custody cases..there is no way a psychologist should have any say/reccomendations on that. It can be handled in a better manner.

Our 'treatments' are essentially conversations...our whole profession is all about buzzwords..but when you boil it all down..get rid of all the buzzwords 'treatment' 'program' 'method'...it's all a joke.

The profession of Psychology should be very very practical..in that sense, it can be very helpful..but it's not that..it tries to mascaraed as a legitimate field.

If only there were practical treatments that are proven to work..... oh wait, we learned about them in our doctoral education. Sorry, you missed those.

 

[barryggg]

If only there were practical treatments that are proven to work..... oh wait, we learned about them in our doctoral education. Sorry, you missed those.

Yes. There is nothing wrong with the Phd. Research is what advances the field. I just don't think it should be the standard. Brilliant people should get a Phd..you, or some of the people here, shouldn't. No person that spends their work day blabbing on an internet forum will come up with a valuable contribution..and that includes me. You'll spend your life researching if stress is bad for people.

My problem is that a lot of the theory a) becomes part of the practice EVEN THOUGH THE RESEARCH DOES NOT SUPPORT IT"S USE! b) Psychologists are given more power despite this concern..when the measures are crap...and when you are guaranteed to decrease mental health issues by a HUGE MARGIN by addressing income inequality and other factors...

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

...you are guaranteed to decrease mental health issues by a HUGE MARGIN by addressing income inequality and other factors...

Fixing income inequality and other factors will fix people with schizophrenia/anorexia/bipolar disorder/borderline personality disorder/etc? Huh….I wonder how we all missed that one?!

 

[PsyDr]

Yes. There is nothing wrong with the Phd. Research is what advances the field. I just don't think it should be the standard. Brilliant people should get a Phd..you, or some of the people here, shouldn't. No person that spends their work day blabbing on an internet forum will come up with a valuable contribution..and that includes me. You'll spend your life researching if stress is bad for people.

My problem is that a lot of the theory a) becomes part of the practice EVEN THOUGH THE RESEARCH DOES NOT SUPPORT IT"S USE! b) Psychologists are given more power despite this concern..when the measures are crap...and when you are guaranteed to decrease mental health issues by a HUGE MARGIN by addressing income inequality and other factors...

It's okay buddy, freshman year was hard for me too.

 

[barryggg]

Fixing income inequality and other factors will fix people with schizophrenia/anorexia/bipolar disorder/borderline personality disorder/etc? Huh….I wonder how we all missed that one?!

Psychologists are better at dealing with small to medium types of mental problems..more serious disorders have to be treated with medicine (all those you mentioned)..of course some talk-therapy is often helpful, but primary treatment are meds. A person doesn't need to have a Phd to offer CBT, and offer it really well.

For these small to medium problems..(where environment) has played the biggest role..of course Psychology can be helpful to the extent that it stays practical and humble. To the extent that Psychology is becoming a field where people are alienated more..because we have more and more dominance and impact in their life..this is bad for mental health.

So again, you are very misguided.

Look, I especially like the neuropsych folks..I think there is a lot of legitimate things there..but as a whole, this field needs to be humble..and it's not...and it's destroying people's lives.

 

[psych.meout]

Psychologists are better at dealing with small to medium types of mental problems..more serious disorders have to be treated with medicine (all those you mentioned)..of course some talk-therapy is often helpful, but primary treatment are meds. A person doesn't need to have a Phd to offer CBT, and offer it really well.

Source?

For these small to medium problems..(where environment) has played the biggest role..of course Psychology can be helpful to the extent that it stays practical and humble.

Source?

To the extent that Psychology is becoming a field where people are alienated more..because we have more and more dominance and impact in their life..this is bad for mental health.

Source?

So again, you are very misguided.

Look, I especially like the neuropsych folks..I think there is a lot of legitimate things there..but as a whole, this field needs to be humble..and it's not...and it's destroying people's lives.

Source?

 

[psych.meout]

I know you guys want to change the topic but...

Psychology in general = troll job

give me $200 for giving you obvious information. There is no greater trolling than that.

Sylvia Browne would be proud!

Low effort troll.

 

[barryggg]

Source?



Source?



Source?


Source?

You should already know this. If you don't..you're incompetent. I won't do the work for you.

I'll give you a hint..you don't treat schizophrenia or bipolar disorder with primarily talk therapy.

You want a source? look it up.

 

[smalltownpsych]

Naw. He just makes inflammatory, derogatory, and ill-informed statements with no need to back them up. Maybe I should tell my patients to stop coming to see me. After all, I am not helping them anyway. We are just having aimless conversations. The evidence is clear that people with schizophrenia fare better when provided with various forms of psychotherapy although specifically which types of pyschotherapy is effective is still needing more research. If I wasn't so busy actually helping people with various types of mental illness, then I could delve into the research more., but then again I would think that the burden of proof would fall more on the person who says that psychologists are not much better than fortune tellers.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092099649900153X
http://psychintegrity.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Berts-article.pdf

 

[barryggg]

Naw. He just makes inflammatory, derogatory, and ill-informed statements with no need to back them up. Maybe I should tell my patients to stop coming to see me. After all, I am not helping them anyway. We are just having aimless conversations. The evidence is clear that people with schizophrenia fare better when provided with various forms of psychotherapy although specifically which types of pyschotherapy is effective is still needing more research. If I wasn't so busy actually helping people with various types of mental illness, then I could delve into the research more., but then again I would think that the burden of proof would fall more on the person who says that psychologists are not much better than fortune tellers.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092099649900153X
http://psychintegrity.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Berts-article.pdf

Refute the sources I have sourced..ie response bias post.

 

[erg923]

Holy ****ing ****. If there is one term I want to go away forever it would be "income inequality." I think "diversity" would be second.

 

[WisNeuro]

2. In regards to response bias. I'll try to be brief. All the research compiled in this area has issues with a) generalizability (ie how does instructing someone to fake things actually generalize to situations where people have a motivation to lie? How are these things the same at all? b. Can't differences among groups be related to recognition of the person that they are under suspicion? how is that not possibly going to impact how they do the self-report? .c. Statistically speaking..response bias indicators moderate the relationship between substantive criterion and criterion . It was awhile back now..but I believe 75% of the studies a moderating effect was found.

But in my head, I always go back to the issue of self-awareness...it's really the key. Some kind of measure to test self-awareness would be great. If we could separate individuals who lacked self-awareness, and understand that their self-reporting was an inability to understand the truth about themselves (which is so common in many mental disorder), then the picture changes a lot..and maybe these self-report instruments become much better.

What "sources" did you "source" here?

 

[LETSGONYR]

This thread needs a "last call" bell. Or a gong, maybe.

Agreed. It's sad, because I was interested in the original discussion topic, before all the nonsense. I kept checking to see if it was ever revisited, but nope.

Sent from my SM-G930V using SDN mobile

 

[barryggg]

What "sources" did you "source" here?

I didn't source anything..but what I said comes from a lit review I did.

 

[barryggg]

Holy ****ing ****. If there is one term I want to go away forever it would be "income inequality." I think "diversity" would be second.

So what if you hate it?

 

[WisNeuro]

I didn't source anything..but what I said comes from a lit review I did.

Then why not quote the sources? That way people could actually see where you're pulling random numbers from. It's hard to refute "sources" when they are amorphous, vague, and undefined.

 

[barryggg]

Then why not quote the sources? That way people could actually see where you're pulling random numbers from. It's hard to refute "sources" when they are amorphous, vague, and undefined.

I rarely ever see sources posted here...but somehow I need to. But the reason I didn't is that the individual claimed that he specifically does research on this...so I assume he knows the majority of the work in this area.

 

[WisNeuro]

Ah, that's what I thought.

 

[barryggg]

Ah, that's what I thought.

Again..your ignorance is not my problem. If you don't know the research, then don't make someone else do the WORK FOR YOU. You want me to make your arguments for you as well? I guess they don't teach you that in a Phd program.

Do a lit review, and then come back with arguments..else, just please leave this convo for the big boys.

 

[WisNeuro]

Again..your ignorance is not my problem. If you don't know the research, then don't make someone else do the WORK FOR YOU. You want me to make your arguments for you as well? I guess they don't teach you that in a Phd program.

Interesting rejoinder, considering the refusal to actually cite your sources.

 

[barryggg]

Interesting rejoinder, considering the refusal to actually cite your sources.

You're actually illustrating the general problem I'm talking about.

Phd's are superior because they get research experience...well that was certainly advantageous for you here. You have shown no intellectual curiosity to do a lit review. Criticizing other people's sources does not mean that you know something about the subject (anybody can criticize and find holes)..you need to do a lit review and say why my points are wrong or not nuanced. You want to make remarks without seeing all the research out there?

If you did that at your regular job, I'd fire you right away.

 

[WisNeuro]

I made no remarks concerning response bias. I merely pointed out your intellectual laziness in making random statements with no citations and then expecting others to respond to your baseless claims with cited sources.

 

[psych.meout]

You should already know this. If you don't..you're incompetent. I won't do the work for you.

I'll give you a hint..you don't treat schizophrenia or bipolar disorder with primarily talk therapy.

You want a source? look it up.

Nope, that's the antithesis of rational, scientific inquiry. You are the one who has made affirmative claims. It is not the skeptics responsibility to prove that your claims are impossible or wrong. It is your responsibility to support the wild claims you made and if you fail to do so, then they lay fallow, unproven, and worthless.

E.g. If I were to tell you there is a teapot orbiting the sun somewhere between the orbits of Earth and Mars, would you believe me without proof? Would it be your responsibility to prove that said teapot is not there or would it be mine to prove that it is?

 

[smalltownpsych]

This type of troll takes things which have some truth such as response bias and how to measure that as being problematic in personality measures and then extrapolates it into all personality measures are useless. Poster seems to have done this with every argument he has made in his brief foray onto this site. Some countries don't use doctoral psychologists (true); therefore, having doctoral psychologists in the US is a waste of time. Not sure what this logical fallacy is referred to as my logic class was way way back in undergrad, but I don't need to put my head up a cows butt to smell the manure.

 

[barryggg]

Nope, that's the antithesis of rational, scientific inquiry. You are the one who has made affirmative claims. It is not the skeptics responsibility to prove that your claims are impossible or wrong. It is your responsibility to support the wild claims you made and if you fail to do so, then they lay fallow, unproven, and worthless.

E.g. If I were to tell you there is a teapot orbiting the sun somewhere between the orbits of Earth and Mars, would you believe me without proof? Would it be your responsibility to prove that said teapot is not there or would it be mine to prove that it is?

You wanted a source when I said that Psychologists are better at dealing with smaller-medium issues ...which stem more from environmental factors. This tells me that you are not trained in the profession, or that you're in denial. There is no direct source to this..but the primary treatment for serious mental illness is handled by medication. You can't talk someone out of hallucinations.

 

[barryggg]

This type of troll takes things which have some truth such as response bias and how to measure that as being problematic in personality measures and then extrapolates it into all personality measures are useless. Poster seems to have done this with every argument he has made in his brief foray onto this site. Some countries don't use doctoral psychologists (true); therefore, having doctoral psychologists in the US is a waste of time. Not sure what this logical fallacy is referred to as my logic class was way way back in undergrad, but I don't need to put my head up a cows butt to smell the manure.

if you do a lit review on many different areas in psychology..you see as many studies pointing to one direction as you do the other. You choose to pick the side of the research that supports your career (that's natural)..but at some point you have to stop the denial.

My problem is when this dodgy science actually impacts people's lives..when it's used when it's not reliable or valid. And it's used because Psychologists as a whole are not interested in the patient..but want to have more power.

 

[erg923]

You wanted a source when I said that Psychologists are better at dealing with smaller-medium issues ...which stem more from environmental factors. This tells me that you are not trained in the profession, or that you're in denial. There is no direct source to this..but the primary treatment for serious mental illness is handled by medication. You can't talk someone out of hallucinations.

There is a robust lit on the usefulness of psychotherapy for SMI conditions.

You really think hallucinations seen in psychiatric illness are purely organic phenomena with no relationship to trauma history, life experiences, anxiety, unconscious desires????

 

[bmedclinic]

This thread needs a "last call" bell. Or a gong, maybe.

I had such high hopes when I started it. I have a difficult time wrapping my head around, of all things, a psychology board getting a troll.

Well, if anyone else sans trollasaurus wants to further an actual discussion, feel free to message me.

 

[erg923]

I had such high hopes when I started it. I have a difficult time wrapping my head around, of all things, a psychology board getting a troll.

Well, if anyone else sans trollasaurus wants to further an actual discussion, feel free to message me.

Ok. Question: What does a CPT add to a typical AD/HD evaluation? The fact that the preform poorly means what, exactly?

It certainly doesn't add to diagnostic clarity I wouldn't think....as it not a criteria for the disorder. So if they meet DSM criteria for disorder, why administered a CPT? How does it change the treatment plan? The treatment is the same whether objective deficits are there ort not if they meet DSM criteria.

 

[barryggg]

There is a robust lit on the usefulness of psychotherapy for SMI conditions.

You really think hallucinations seen in psychiatric illness are purely organic phenomena with no relationship to trauma history, life experiences, anxiety, unconscious desires????

Based on the imaging studies and the current theories..yes..largely organic.

 

[smalltownpsych]

And it's used because Psychologists as a whole are not interested in the patient..but want to have more power.

Aha! So that is your underlying belief and perspective about the field. Now it all makes sense. How did you figure this out all on your own? I am amazed that you figured out that I got into this field to satiate my drive for power and control over people. Brilliant!

Based on the imaging studies and the current theories..yes..largely organic.

Psychotic illness is not just about the hallucinations. Psychotherapy is helpful for other aspects of the person as patients with SMI have the same problems as other people. You seem to care more about your vendetta than you do about people with psychological problems.

 

[erg923]

Based on the imaging studies and the current theories..yes..largely organic.

That's cute

 

[barryggg]

Aha! So that is your underlying belief and perspective about the field. Now it all makes sense. How did you figure this out all on your own? I am amazed that you figured out that I got into this field to satiate my drive for power and control over people. Brilliant!

It's not a conspiracy. I don't believe in that. I believe most people go into the profession with the right intentions.but when you spend 10yrs working for something, you want to stay relevant and promote those skills that you just got.[/QUOTE]

 

[barryggg]

That's cute

Yes. Facts are very cute.

 

[psych.meout]

You wanted a source when I said that Psychologists are better at dealing with smaller-medium issues ...which stem more from environmental factors. This tells me that you are not trained in the profession, or that you're in denial. There is no direct source to this..but the primary treatment for serious mental illness is handled by medication. You can't talk someone out of hallucinations.

Here is what I actually posted, not your habitual misrepresentation:

Psychologists are better at dealing with small to medium types of mental problems..more serious disorders have to be treated with medicine (all those you mentioned)..of course some talk-therapy is often helpful, but primary treatment are meds. A person doesn't need to have a Phd to offer CBT, and offer it really well.

Source?

For these small to medium problems..(where environment) has played the biggest role..of course Psychology can be helpful to the extent that it stays practical and humble.

Source?

To the extent that Psychology is becoming a field where people are alienated more..because we have more and more dominance and impact in their life..this is bad for mental health.

Source?

So again, you are very misguided.

Look, I especially like the neuropsych folks..I think there is a lot of legitimate things there..but as a whole, this field needs to be humble..and it's not...and it's destroying people's lives.

Source?

These claims are what you need to substantiate with some kind of evidence.

if you do a lit review on many different areas in psychology..you see as many studies pointing to one direction as you do the other. You choose to pick the side of the research that supports your career (that's natural)..but at some point you have to stop the denial.

My problem is when this dodgy science actually impacts people's lives..when it's used when it's not reliable or valid. And it's used because Psychologists as a whole are not interested in the patient..but want to have more power.

Again, provide some kind of source that these claims are true.

 

[psych.meout]

This type of troll takes things which have some truth such as response bias and how to measure that as being problematic in personality measures and then extrapolates it into all personality measures are useless. Poster seems to have done this with every argument he has made in his brief foray onto this site. Some countries don't use doctoral psychologists (true); therefore, having doctoral psychologists in the US is a waste of time. Not sure what this logical fallacy is referred to as my logic class was way way back in undergrad, but I don't need to put my head up a cows butt to smell the manure.

I think it's kind of an argumentum ad populum fallacy. Barryggg has repeatedly claimed that the model used in the US is wrong based simply on other Western nations not following the same model, not on any empirical research-based comparisons between countries, e.g. patient outcomes, provider knowledge and skill, etc. He just makes wild claims without evidence.

 

[erg923]

Yes. Facts are very cute.

Inferences about symptoms and behavior from neuroimaging is not "facts" and if you think they are, I have a bridge to sell you.

 

[smalltownpsych]

It's not a conspiracy. I don't believe in that. I believe most people go into the profession with the right intentions.but when you spend 10yrs working for something, you want to stay relevant and promote those skills that you just got.

...and that's a problem because...? How would that be different from any other career? Why does that mean that psychologists want power more than helping patient? Again, you make a potentially true statement as a premise, but your conclusion does not logically follow.

 

[FadedC]

I had such high hopes when I started it. I have a difficult time wrapping my head around, of all things, a psychology board getting a troll.

I've seen it happen a fair amount through the years. The number one sign is when they start refusing to cite sources and call you lazy for even asking. I even saw someone do that pre-emptively before anyone ever asked them for a source. Now that's some advanced trolling.

What surprises me is that people are continuing to engage with the troll, when he has made it clear that he is just trying to inflame people, and is not actually trying to have a conversation. I suspect part of the reason people like to troll here sometimes is because it works.