I got told at a recent job interview to never ask a clinical psychologist to describe what their job entails, instead ask anyone and everyone else…
So, what do you think a job in clinical psychology involves?
The description is fairly straightforward although many practitioners may have their own take on how to implement the methodology. Why would a job interviewer tell you anything so silly? It’s not like the job is some Zen moment.
I had one once.
(There was a period between the time I had bad run-ins with psychiatry and the time I ceased to have an active interest in counseling, and during that period I saw a licensed clinical psychologist)
I came in with an agenda about stuff I wanted to talk about. (Not everyone necessarily would). Psychologist listened. Asked questions to clarify.
Once I got into it, that is to say beyond describing what I wanted to talk about and into talking about it, psychologist listened and occasionally provided feedback, and asked questions that were tied in to the material I spoke of.
As I finished, feeling that the psychologist had been a good and patient listener, and feeling that the psychologist had not jumped to any early conclusions or quickly defined me into some general category or done a “one size fits all” on me, I found the psychologist still mostly listening, occasionally providing brief feedback to small and immediate parts of what I had just said. That was now a problem.
WELL??? (I felt like shouting…) OK you’ve listened attentively and for a long time. Now I want your expertise, your advice, summary, insights, answers to what this all means. Psychologist listened to that, asked a few clarifying questions, observed that I found this frustrating, asked what else I was feeling, etc.
I think a clinical psychologist is a “piece of ear”. You get good listen from the ones who are good at it. Within some bounds of professionalism, you get some concerned input and feedback mostly oriented towards helping you process whatever you think you need to process. But content — answers, analyses, the provision of a comprehension capable of making sense of your plight in a fashion that it did not already make sense to you? Not necessarily. And not necessarly to any extent greater than what you’d obtain from speaking at some length to any other attentively listening person. And not necessarily of any superior quality than what you’d obtain from any other attentively listening person.
Which brings me back to “piece of ear”. You caught the parallel, I’m sure. Everyone had a sort of an appetite to be understood and heard at some depth. To satisfy that appetite you need to get some ear from someone, somewhere. I won’t denigrate the paid arrangement but I will say that it is probably ideal that you experience it in a more mutual human situation, and one in which none of the participants are participating because they are paid to do so.
I think the “piece of ear” arrangement can become addictive; it can become an end unto itself, this experience of talking and being heard by someone who listens in return for a little cash on their [del]pillow[/del][del]dresser[/del] desktop surface.
But to focus on the positive, the best ones are good at what they do, they don’t tend to medicalize or pathologize you or what you come in with, and I think that is a good thing.
What was the job you were interviewing for?
My wife and many of our friends are clinical psychologists. Most of them provide psychotherapy as the bulk of their daily work, though some may specialize in assessment or testing (one of our friends does assessments on kids in the juvenile justice system). I find your interviewer’s comment odd.
Agreed. The first time you go, it’s amazing - someone who actually listens to every word, understands, is there. But then, nothing. Mileage, like so many other things in life, varies.
The job interview was a psychological research assistant.
I dont think it was a silly thing to suggest-asking other people provides an interesting insight.
And besides, a lot of people dont know the difference between clinical psychology and psychiatry.
It sure does. Both my SILs are clinical psychologists , both with PhDs. In their respective fields (autism diagnosis & intervention and adolescent-onset schizophrenia), both do plenty of evaluation AND therapy. They don’t just sit there and say “Gee, what do YOU think you should do?” I would never use a psychologist who was that lazy and unprepared.
I could tell you, as a nearly clinical psychologist, but then I’d have to kill you.
Hmmm … psycho-analyses clinics?