Things That Make You Happy!

[Heinz Doofenshmirtz]

Wow Heinz That Is Wonderful!!!
I Don't Feel You're Being Arrogant At All! I Think Your Education Is Amazing And People Could Learn A Lot From You. I Don't Know, Maybe It's Because I'm Young, Only Being 20 I'm Pretty Impressed By People With Vast Educations And Those Whom Have Followed Their Dreams In Life. Teaching Is An Amazing Thing And I Believe I'd Love To Teach, I'm Just A Writer And Want To Do Something With That And I Want To Be A Therapist As Therapy Has Helped Me In Life And I Want To Help Others. Literature Has Also Done A LOT For Me In Life And I Believe By Writing I Can Help Others As An Author Just As Many Authors Have Helped Me. And By Being A Therapist I Can Pick Apart The Human Mind Professionally And Actually Know More About It Than I Already Do. I Love Picking Things Apart So That's A Great Job For Me Lol.

Hey Jessie, thanks.    If you're interested in counseling and clinical psych, I have a few recommendations for you for reading.  (Not that I'm a clinician, but I do know a little about therapy, so I can at least point you in a particular direction.)  Try these and see if you find them interesting;

http://www.amazon.com/Road-Less-Traveled-25th-Anniversary/dp/0743243153/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1326774248&sr=8-1

http://www.amazon.com/Different-Drum-Community-Making-Peace/dp/0684848589/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1326774248&sr=8-5

http://www.amazon.com/Becoming-Person-Therapists-View-Psychotherapy/dp/039575531X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1326774333&sr=8-1

http://www.amazon.com/Way-Being-Carl-Rogers/dp/0395755301/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1326774333&sr=8-4

http://www.amazon.com/Client-Centered-Therapy-Current-Practice-Implications/dp/1841198404/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1326774333&sr=8-5

There are other schools of thought on psychotherapy, but this is what I've had the most exposure to.  The books by Scott Peck are more like self-help/self-discovery books than therapy books, but they have a lot of implications for therapy.  Carl Rogers is one of the giants in the field of therapy, and his work was seminal in establishing psychotherapy as a legitimate form of clinical psychology.

[Heinz Doofenshmirtz]

Those are noble goals bladechick777. I say follow your dreams.

Heinz, I hear you on that. On a local forum I used to moderate, I made the mistake of posting my credentials, and that went south right fast. This forum is vastly different from that cluck fest.

Thanks Chako... I know the feeling... I've been burned a couple times by that and it's a drag.  I feel the same about MTO too... I wouldn't have mentioned it if I didn't think it wouldn't have been okay.  I appreciate this forum so much more than others I've read...  Definitely another thing that makes me happy. 

[bladechick777]

Thanks Heinz, I'll Definitely Check Them Out.
I'll Tell My Kind Of Sort Of Girlfriend About Them Too! She's Interested In Psychology As Well, As Is My Brother.

I Wonder If Her Babies Are Going To Be As Analytical And Radical Minded Like Her. She's Expecting! Twins! Lol. It's Amazing. I Believe There's A Reason Her And I Found Each Other, I've Just Yet To Figure Out What It Is.

Thanks Again!

[AimlessWanderer]

If you're interested in counseling and clinical psych, I have a few recommendations for you for reading.  (Not that I'm a clinician, but I do know a little about therapy, so I can at least point you in a particular direction.)  Try these and see if you find them interesting;

Heinz, quick question if I may ... are all those Rogerian data sources (i.e. Person Centred), and any reason for leaning that way and not psychodynamic?

The reason I ask ... my studies (neurosis only - no psychosis) obviously covered the person centred approach but also the main psychoanalists, behavioural, hypnoidal, Gestalt and other aspects such as Ericksonian Hypnosis (Milton Erickson - not the other one). I found that person centred was effective for some clients, but others needed a dynamic approach to trigger any development. I know that many schools operate exclusive of other theories (very closed shop), but we were given a highly eccelectic background so we could adjust the approach to suit the client.

[Heinz Doofenshmirtz]

If you're interested in counseling and clinical psych, I have a few recommendations for you for reading.  (Not that I'm a clinician, but I do know a little about therapy, so I can at least point you in a particular direction.)  Try these and see if you find them interesting;

Heinz, quick question if I may ... are all those Rogerian data sources (i.e. Person Centred), and any reason for leaning that way and not psychodynamic?

Nothing other than that's what I know the most about.  I do know that psychodynamics is one of the dominant approaches these days, but I don't know much of anything about it.  I have friends who are therapists/clinicians who know more about it, but it's not something that comes up a whole lot on the times I talk with them; usually more mundane stuff like how you been, what have you been up to etc. is what we jabber about.

The reason I ask ... my studies (neurosis only - no psychosis) obviously covered the person centred approach but also the main psychoanalists, behavioural, hypnoidal, Gestalt and other aspects such as Ericksonian Hypnosis (Milton Erickson - not the other one). I found that person centred was effective for some clients, but others needed a dynamic approach to trigger any development. I know that many schools operate exclusive of other theories (very closed shop), but we were given a highly eccelectic background so we could adjust the approach to suit the client.

That makes sense to me...  It seems to me, given what little I know, that Rogers' work formed a lot of the foundation of things like psychodynamics, and other theories too, which is one reason I had an interest in his writings in the past.  I also read his stuff because when I first started studying psychology I was interested in therapy and clinical work, but I realized I had too many of my own hangups to deal with first!   

Since then I've gone the opposite direction; I'm a brain guy... cognition, intelligence, attention, sensory perception, neuropsychology, cognitive neuroscience, physiological psychology, etc. are my areas of knowledge.  Personally, I need more objectivity and quantifiability and it's a real struggle sometimes to get high measures of that in clinical work.  Neurons do pretty much the same thing all the time, and monkeys are pretty easy to train to push buttons and the like, so it's a fairly straightforward process.  Although, it's not always easy getting an electrode in a monkey's brain! 

Bad monkey!!!   

[AimlessWanderer]

It seems to me, given what little I know, that Rogers' work formed a lot of the foundation of things like psychodynamics, and other theories too, which is one reason I had an interest in his writings in the past.  I also read his stuff because when I first started studying psychology I was interested in therapy and clinical work, but I realized I had too many of my own hangups to deal with first!   

Rogers' methods do form the canvas for an effective modern therapeutic strategy, upon which to paint with other techniques as appropriate. Rogers (for the benefit of others) is basically counselling as we know it and is very passive, a far cry from the earlier, say Freudian techniques (to pick a well known example) where the "expert" dictates to client what the problems are.  The trap is that many folk see PCT as the sole solution and refuse to allow dynamic philosophies into the framework. It needs to underpin the session and the rapport and congruence are essential IMO, but a diverse toolbox will always yield best results. As regards your last statement I reckon 80% of the people I studied with were "wounded healers", and ALL students had to go through a period of therapy themselves before achieving full quals to make sure they weren't carting their own baggage into the mix everytime

The problem as I see it is that ALL the emminent psychologists formed their theories based on reflections of their own personalities, and therefore NONE of them are universal in their application. The more techniques you become conversant with, the greater chance there is of gaining a fair appreciation of the client and putting an effective plan into action with them. Just like anything else in life really. That's not to take anything away from your own work of course Paul  I did virtually nothing in your area, all my study was therapy oriented and we were strongly advised (told) to keep well out of the clinical side of the game and leave it for the guys like yourself  As I've said elsewhere though, I bailed out before becoming a practicing therapist and stayed paddling in oils and greases so this is all personal opinion based on a very limited window of applied knowledge rather than any career long conclusions 

Jessie, if you want to go that route the reading materials above will give you a very good platform to work from, but if it grabs you're interest thereon I'd recommend finding a training organisation that covers a wide range of approaches rather than "speSmurfpillst" schools who say "our way is the correct way" 

Just my two pence ... and don't take my word for it either   

Good luck!

[Heinz Doofenshmirtz]

Jessie, if you want to go that route the reading materials above will give you a very good platform to work from, but if it grabs you're interest thereon I'd recommend finding a training organisation that covers a wide range of approaches rather than "speSmurfpillst" schools who say "our way is the correct way" 

Just my two pence ... and don't take my word for it either   

Good luck!

Definitely.  A general "professional" school of psychology is the best way to go for something like that.  You can get into counseling with something like an MA, many schools offer an MA in clinical or counseling psychology, but of course that means you have to have a BA first.  Many states (not sure about the UK, but I'm guessing your on our side of the pond) have licensure requirements for counseling and therapy that includes many hours of internship work and training. 

Usually in a professional school they set that up for you and walk you through it, helping you meet all the requirements to pass licensure examinations and the like as well as completing internship hours, and so on.  On the other hand, professional schools are expensive, and they also have the drawback that if you decide to continue on with a doctorate level degree after getting a masters, you're limited to a PsyD, which being a professional/vocational degree won't do you any good if you want to go into academics.

The advantage of a regular academic masters degree is it's an academic degree and you can use it to continue with either an academic or professional education.  It also will put you in a position to pursue clinical work as well, but you won't have the support of a professional vocational school for that.

So, it's six of one, half a dozen of another, each with different advantages, disadvantages, and costs.  Start with working on a BA in psych first, and by the time you're done with that, you'll have a much better idea of what you want to do and where you want to go for it.

[bladechick777]

Thanks For All Of The Info.
You Guys Are So Awesome.