User talk:Psykhosis

I'm listening...

Coherence therapy
Hello. I am a psychotherapist in private practice in Oakland, CA and I work for Bruce Ecker and the Coherence Psychology Institute. Coherence therapy, while it is a newer modality, is better established than Gestalt in my opinion. The University of Memphis, one of the most highly regarded programs in psychotherapy research is using our training materials with their students. There are no major universities currently teaching Gestalt. It has been called by eminent constructivists such as Robert Neimeyer, the editor of the Journal of Constructivist Psychology, "the most compelling incarnation of clinical constructivism on the contemporary scene." Ecker has been widely published in academic and popular circles, and I interact daily with therapists from as far as Germany and Australia who practice coherence therapy. I am curious what qualifies in your mind a modality to be "major."


 * I appreciate your dedication and enthusiasm for your chosen modality. I'm sure it is well-deserved. However, the section in question is not intended to address every modality that has been shown to be effective or professionally established...that would make the article way too long. Rather, it needs to be limited to those that have major historical and professional significance. You say that there are no major universities currently teaching Gestalt...while I do not think that is true, that is not the issue. It is important because it has been a major influence on the theory and practice of psychotherapy, which is still practiced today after 50 years. Further, a majority of introductory texts on clinical psychology have a chapter or large section on Gestalt therapy...how many have one on coherence therapy? Probably none. That is not because it isn't a valid modality, but because it hasn't been established as being fundamentally unique or influential on the field as a whole.


 * On the other hand, you might be able to make an argument for including a sub-section on "clinical constructivism" as being a therapeutic orientation. I don't know anything about it myself, but it sounds interesting. Anyway, please don't be offended...the article simply doesn't have room to include all valid modalities. Psykhosis 19:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi. Without needing to look too far, I saw that the introductory text book, Essential Psychotherapies: Theory and Practice by Gurman and Messer has numerous references to coherence therapy and Bruce Ecker. I assume that many others do as well. In the book, coherence therapy is referred to as Depth-Oriented Brief Therapy, as this was its original name. Newer editions of psychology texts will reflect the new name. See coherence therapy for background on the name change. To corroborate what I have written here, you need but look up Essential Psychotherapies on Amazon.com and put the name Ecker in the "Search Inside this Book" box in the section "Inside this book." If this satisfies your objections, please return the stub I wrote. If not, please let me know more evidence you need. Thank you for making sure that this page is of the highest quality.


 * I honestly have no agenda in keeping off this mode of therapy. But if you were to look at the list of psychotherapies, what makes coherence more worthy of note than any of the others listed? If we put coherence, then why not all the other modes, some of which might be more relevant and widely practiced than coherence. What makes coherence therapy stand out? What about it is significantly different or important compared with the modalities already listed in the clinical psychology section? What historical significance does it have? Again, the issue needs to be more than it being a valid and respected form of therapy...it needs to represent a major mode of theory or practice that broadens the field in some significant and unique way that the listed orientations don't address. I'll leave it at that...if you honestly feel that coherence therapy meets that requirement, I won't object to its return...I simply ask you to give these questions real consideration. Psykhosis 02:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Masters level training
Hi. I saw that you removed my paragraph. I can probably find you a source, but I'll save myself some time and just tell you that I graduated from an acredited university with a degree in Clinical Psychology (that is what it says right on the diploma) and went on to acquire a license from the state of California (MFT) - the school provided an entire program including the supervision of hours and help with preparing for the state licensing exams.

No need for an apology - I sense your edit was made with honest intentions. People make the mistake of thinking that "psychology", "clinical psychology" and "psychologist" are terms restricted to Doctoral-level licenses. But that isn't so. The APA has been shameless in fostering that error because it suits their agenda. In the U.S. the only restricted term related to doctoral-level practice of psychology in a clinical setting is "Licensed psychologist" (and rightly so). All of the other terms have broader meanings that span political borders, apply through periods of history that predate the APA or regulatory laws in this area, and have a meaning that arises out of English usage. Steve 22:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Like I said, if you can provide a reputable citation for your claim, then that fulfills the requirement for Wikipedia. But even if you did indeed earn a Masters in Clinical Psychology, a single program doing so is not enough to invalidate the APA (despite your dislike of it, it remains the premier psychological organization), and the vast majority of schools. At the most, it would be evidence of a beginning merger...to say otherwise does not reflect the field as it currently stands. You are making an extraordinary claim, and so it requires strong proof that it reflects the profession. Psykhosis 22:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't know what you are saying. I don't dislike the APA.  I strongly back their drive for a set of rational standards and their drive to make psychology a research-based field (which may be the only hope of getting rid the tons of psychobabble out there).  But I don't like it when they behave like a guild organization and engage in lobbying to reserve a word that already has usage in the English language or when the let themselves be misunderstood in a way that diminishes what Masters level licensees are doing.  And nothing I've said "invalidates" the APA.  To disagree with some of the things they do doesn't constitute "dislike" or "invalidation."


 * There is nothing extrodinary about my claim - are you familiar with the Masters level licenses? Here is what the program at my old school says:


 * "Master of Arts in Clinical Psychology Program"
 * "We offer a Clinical Psychology degree, with optional specializations in Child Studies, Applied Community Psychology and LGBT Psychology. Learners may also design their own specialization. We also offer a non-clinical Masters in Psychology degree for those who do not intend to seek licensure.
 * "Our Masters in Clinical Psychology degree fulfills educational requirements for California Marriage and Family Therapist licensure".


 * [Antioch University] is a respected institution that has been around since 1852. The founder of the campus I attended was a licensed psychologist whose degree was from UCLA and after getting his degree he studied at the Jung Institute in Zurich. He was one of my supervisors when I worked in the clinic.


 * I stand corrected. Okay, then let's integrate this information. Psykhosis 23:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me. You want to take a shot at it, or should I?  Steve 23:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)  Never mind - I see you have started.  I'll make a small change to include psychotherapist along with the LPC. Steve 23:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I think the last sentence was okay before you changed it. Here is where I'm coming from.
 * - All states require a doctoral degree as part of becoming a "Licensed psychologist."
 * - All states permit an LPC or therapist to engage in clinical psychology with a masters degree.
 * The confusion in this area is because of the three different kinds of things being discussed.
 * 1) Degrees (doctoral or masters),
 * 2) Licenses ("licenced psychologist", "MFT", "LCSW", etc.) - this is the only area where titles are restricted,
 * 3) Areas of activity or bodies of knowledge ("School counseling", "Clincal psychology", "Industrial consultation", etc.)
 * Licensing says that masters level people can NOT call themselves "Licensed Psychologist" but they can work in clinical psychology while licensed as a therapist or as an LPC. Steve 00:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Question on Licensing
Have you seen any place that lists the numbers of licensed practitioners by license type? Let me know if you do, it would be good info for the article. Steve 17:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think I have...I'll have to look again. That's a good idea. Psykhosis 17:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Well Done
I just wanted to leave you a message acknowledging the exceptional work you've done on the Clinical Psychology page. You've really transformed it with much more material and a far more professional appearance! Steve 18:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I know that I'm a bold editor and by being so will manage to step on a few toes...if I've stepped on yours, I promise it has only been in the spirit of wanting to create a great article. It isn't done yet either...it still needs sections on career data, diagnostics, and research. But, we'll get there... I want an FA-worthy article with this one! Psykhosis 23:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

RfC on User Steve Wolfer
First, I'll apologize for making a personal request of you.

I have been trying to add Ayn Rand to the various lists of philosphers here in Wikipedia. There are those that don't like her at all and don't want her name to appear anywhere. The result has been an edit war.

And now, two users, Simoes along with Buridan have initiated a Request for Comment on me. The request asks that I be admonished to "refrain from editing philosophy-related lists".

All of this has nothing to do with you of course. But one of the allegations is that I have not made any contributions to wikipedia except for my attempted Rand entries, and that I'm discourteous, refuse to compromise, provide no sources, resort to name-calling, etc. I have added a number of small articles here in the psychology area and made fixes and improvements to others - and you are familiar with my manner of interacting, compromising, citing sources, etc.

If you were willing, and could think of anything positive to say on my behalf - then maybe the only voices at that RfC wouldn't be those of my detractors. I will have to go out to that page and defend myself like a kid sent to the principals office. How awful is that! Steve 00:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking the time to write some kind words for me at that RfC. After reading the remarks from you, from others and reading my reply to the charges, the person that started the RfC (Simoes) has recinded his certification saying that he now believes the other person involved in starting that RfC was the problem.  I've started practicing my citations :-)   I started a small article on Haim Ginott - an extraodinary child psychologist who changed the way professionals talk to children.  Again, thanks.  Steve 07:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Branden
I appreciate your integrity in honoring the cite. I too have grown tired, and a little sad. This shouldn't be so hard. I'm not going to do any more editing on the article (other than maintenance) - besides, I don't think the article needs more.

I don't know if your intention is to practice therapy or work in some other area of psychology. If it is therapy, Branden's "The Six Pillars of Self-Esteem" has the most powerful model of a positive-psychology therapy you'll find - and a chapter critiquing other definitions of self-esteem. The first few chapters of "The Psychology of Self-Esteem" should be read by everyone in the field for the philosophy of psychology. In the epilogue of the lastest edition, is chapter addressed to therapists. You asked about my passion; you would need to read those to see where some of it comes from (and it also is from having seen Branden work, seeing him debate Ellis, speaking with Ellis, from my experiences as a therapist, and from being around long enough to have seen many of the 'big names' in person). Steve 05:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Rating the ToK
Hi. I'm trying to get members of the Psychology Project to get together and rate the both the quality and importance of the Tree of Knowledge System. Hope you're interested. Have a great day! EPM 19:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your helpful comments on the discussion page for the Tree of Knowledge System. I changed the lead paragraph and the "problem of psychology" section a bit. For the latter, I added a few lines here and there like, "Henrique argues that..." to give a more NPOV feel. If you'd like to check out the lead and the "problem of psychology" section, I'd love to hear any more suggestions you might have. (Of course, feel free to edit something yourself, if you're so inclined!) Have a good one! EPM 00:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
I just wanted to say thanks for all your additions to the MHP article. You obviously have a very good amount of understanding of these fields. I appreciate your expertise.

Also, I support the move of the Culturual/religous section to mental health. An editor added that in there awhile back and I've always tried to better adapt it to the article - but, I never could seem to fit it in 100%.

Thanks again! Chupper 17:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Clinical psychology Mediation
Hello! I'm .V., a member of Wikipedia's mediation cabal. We provide informal and optional mediation to users in disputes so, hopefully, it can be resolved early instead of being taken to "official" channels (the Mediation Committee or Arbitration). A user has filed a mediation cabal request regarding a discussion on a page in which you are a participant. You can find a link to the mediation here.

Remember, this mediation is purely optional and the result is non-binding. The goal of this mediation is to hopefully resolve the matter peacably, fairly, and to the satisfaction of all parties involved. Thanks!  . V .  [Talk 08:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Psychiatry
I'm not sure if you are interested in psychiatry as well, but I know any additions or modifications you could make to that article would be appreciated. Take care! Chupper 01:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Reparative Therapy
Do you know much about Reparative therapy? I am confused as to what the actual stance of medical field is. Do they oppose all therapies that attempt to alter sexual orientation, or just the ones that claim homosexuality is a disorder? There is a lot of politics involved, so it is hard to tell what the official stance of the medical field really is.Joshuajohanson 04:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Carlrogers.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Carlrogers.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Grouptherapy.jpg
File:Grouptherapy.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Grouptherapy.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case:. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 19:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation
Your upload of File:Brainglow.gif or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:02, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of David Brazier


The article David Brazier has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Non-notable author, no independent sources provided"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

''' This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. ''' Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Carlrogers.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Carlrogers.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:12, 23 April 2023 (UTC)