MD (Psychiatry) or PhD (Social Psychology)?

[contemplate]

I have always been interested in psychology, but I don't like the field as it is-- I find myself deeply troubled by the fundamental principles of 'psychologism.' In my opinion, the Cartesian concept of self is not the best way to navigate our exploration of humanity. 

 

I have long desired to pursue a career in psychiatry (I am also deeply conflicted with the philosophies of its practice) because I love helping people at the individual, personal level, but I long to effect changes at the societal level-- the philosophical ideologies our societies are deeply rooted in.

 

Sometimes, I feel that I should just go with the med school path. I cannot imagine myself being content with a life in academia.... not enough personal, day-to-day interaction with people (patients/non-academics). At other times, I feel discouraged at the thought of not being able to devote enough time to deeply think and research at the philosophical level until I am well-established in medicine (at LEAST 30 years down the road). I have also been repeatedly told that I have a gift for helping others at the personal level.

Any thoughts/advice?

Edited April 20, 2014 by contemplate

[clinicalpsychphd20]

Umm, I guess my question is do you want to be a practitioner or do research? How do you feel about taking all the medical school pre-requisites and classes - biology/chemistry/physics/etc? On the other hand, how do you feel about doing research for the rest of your career?

 

Also, have you considered Clinical Psychology? You could help people at the individual level and do research. 

[QASP]

Psychology as a field encompasses a huge number of perspectives, and you can find many people who have radically different philosophical beliefs within it. The best way to impact something you don't like about a field is to get in it first, and then change it; criticism from the outside is rarely impactful. You may want to look into a clinical-community psychology program, it bridges a lot of your stated interests. An MD/PhD also seems like a reasonable approach that would allow you to get into research far earlier in your career and make it the heart of what you do.

[Guest |||]

I really think you should learn more about both fields, as it seems you have made an assumption of what they Must be like for Every individual, without any real basis.

[juilletmercredi]

One of the things I've noticed is that people outside of psychology tend to believe the field is something that it isn't, and very often that "something" is philosophy.  The Cartesian concept of self is a philosophical argument, not a psychological one, and it's definitely not something that most psychologists are familiar with much less reference in our actual work.  I had to look it up.  In fact, the whole field of psychological research goes against that assumption - that we cannot know anything of anything that is not the self.  We spend a lot of time investigating and thinking about other people, and about the commonalities in people's behavior.

Academics also have lots of interaction on a day-to-day level.  I would wage that at least 90 percent of academics teach and work at non-elite schools, and spend most of their days teaching classes to undergraduates and some grad students, interacting with their colleagues, and giving research talks and seminars on occasion.  Even professors at elite institutions teach classes and attend colloquia, brown-bags, and conferences.  Besides, as a social psychologist you would have a lab of people with which you worked, and you would likely see most of them every day.  There's no thinking and researching at the philosophical level.  If you want to do that, you need to get a PhD in philosophy, not psychology.

But yes, the question is answered this way: Do you want to be a medical doctor, or do you want to be a researcher and academic?  People with MDs and psychiatry residencies typically ended up being psychiatrists in private practice, or maybe you'd be employed by a psychiatric hospital or clinic.  MD psychiatrists don't typically do talk therapy; as I understand it, they're not really trained that way.  I think their residencies do include *some* training in talk therapy, but more generally they're trained to see psychiatric disorders as physical/chemical imbalances that can be corrected by medication - although some psychiatrists do talk therapy.  Psychiatrists also tend to work with the more severely mentally ill, although that all depends on where you work.  Broadly speaking, if you want to do talk therapy, you should consider instead a PhD in clinical or counseling psychology (or an MSW and licensure as an LCSW).

If you are interested in producing scholarship about the ways in which people interact with each other, then social psychology is what you're looking for.  If you want to teach and do research in a university setting, then the PhD in social psych may serve you.  You could also theoretically take your PhD in social psych to non-academic research positions.

If you're torn between the two, a clinical psychology PhD could still be the way to go, specifically in a clinical science or scientist-practitioner program.  A person with a PhD in clinical psychology is generally trained to both provide talk therapy but also to conduct research and teach psychology.  Many clinical psychologists do both - maintain a limited private practice while also teaching full-time at a university (or, conversely, do full-time therapy and adjunct part-time).  A clinical science program leans more heavily towards research training, although they are all APA-accredited programs that will allow you to become licensed.  a S-P program by definition is supposed to balance them more equally, but some S-P programs lean more towards the practitioner side.

 

I also agree about the advice about clinical-community programs.  I have a couple of friends who have done such programs - it teaches you to treat people at the individual level while also considering the societal and systemic contributions to their illnesses, and also equipping you with the ability to try to effect systemic change.

[Lisa44201]

I have always been interested in psychology, but I don't like the field as it is-- I find myself deeply troubled by the fundamental principles of 'psychologism.' In my opinion, the Cartesian concept of self is not the best way to navigate our exploration of humanity. 

 

I have long desired to pursue a career in psychiatry (I am also deeply conflicted with the philosophies of its practice) because I love helping people at the individual, personal level, but I long to effect changes at the societal level-- the philosophical ideologies our societies are deeply rooted in.

 

Sometimes, I feel that I should just go with the med school path. I cannot imagine myself being content with a life in academia.... not enough personal, day-to-day interaction with people (patients/non-academics). At other times, I feel discouraged at the thought of not being able to devote enough time to deeply think and research at the philosophical level until I am well-established in medicine (at LEAST 30 years down the road). I have also been repeatedly told that I have a gift for helping others at the personal level.

Any thoughts/advice?

There are some psychologists who aren't keen on Cartesian modeling, but they are few and far between.

 

Look up some things written by Dr. James Lamiell at Georgetown; Google "statisticism", and read what comes up. I believe you'll enjoy it.

[contemplate]

Hello all, thank you for your responses.

I do in fact know a lot about psychology. I am studying neuroscience among many other topics and feel that neuroscience is a bit too 'cold' while psychology is a bit too 'black box'-like. I've also had a lot of psychotherapy/ treatment myself to overcome life difficulties and bad habits, but I don't think any of the conventional therapy has really helped me. I'm not saying that it's not beneficial for anyone; I just don't think it is right for me. A patient never fails treatment; treatment failed to help a patient-- especially when the patient is entirely willing and dying to change. 

 

I've worked in labs-- immunology, neuroscience/behavioral, and neurology/psychology--over the past 6 years, so I definitely know what the lifestyle is like. I remember my first impression of research after working a few weeks of my first research assistantship was "Wow.. this is so boring. I can't imagine myself living like this everyday." I need something more active, engaging, and personal. After all, there's a reason why researchers drink so much coffee.

People who go into a field usually (not always... but usually) do not question the legitimacy of the foundations of the field. For example, American culture emphasizes the value of autonomy, but is there really free will? Do people really have the ability to exercise executive control and override impulses? Does the body not affect the mind more than the 'mind' affect the body? The Cartesian concept I am referring to is that of mind-body dualism. I believe we need a more holistic approach, for example, embodied cognition and co-consciousness. Instead of thinking the ego is the locus of consciousness, we must think of a self-consciousness that has origins in our social spheres. I encourage you all to watch Rowan William's lecture on Empathy. Youtube for the Tanner Lecture 2014.

I want to go into medicine so terribly because I want to help on an individual level, but I love research as well. I don't know why I am so torn.. I could always do something like an MD-PhD, I suppose. More coursework... more tuition... Sigh.
 

[Munashi]

People who go into a field usually (not always... but usually) do not question the legitimacy of the foundations of the field. For example, American culture emphasizes the value of autonomy, but is there really free will? Do people really have the ability to exercise executive control and override impulses? Does the body not affect the mind more than the 'mind' affect the body? The Cartesian concept I am referring to is that of mind-body dualism. I believe we need a more holistic approach, for example, embodied cognition and co-consciousness. Instead of thinking the ego is the locus of consciousness, we must think of a self-consciousness that has origins in our social spheres.

 

As always, people are welcome to disagree with me, but here goes.

 

I do not consider "mind-body dualism" a "foundation" of the field of psychology.  In my area, the "foundation" is more along the lines of, say, the scientific method.  Empiricism.  Not any particular theory or concept.

 

Based on your descriptions of your experience & other comments you've made, it sounds like you've had far more exposure to the Cognitive side of things than Social.  Perhaps this is part of the issue leading to your uncertainty about which path to take.  I'm also seeing a major contradiction between: "Wow.. this is so boring. I can't imagine myself living like this everyday" and "I love research as well" - which is it?

 

-------------------------

 

Aside: When you reference "the ego" above, please tell me we are not talking about Freud..... The use of the word "psychotherapy" is also somewhat concerning, but perhaps that's just me being picky about diction.

[QASP]

Hello all, thank you for your responses.

I do in fact know a lot about psychology. I am studying neuroscience among many other topics and feel that neuroscience is a bit too 'cold' while psychology is a bit too 'black box'-like. I've also had a lot of psychotherapy/ treatment myself to overcome life difficulties and bad habits, but I don't think any of the conventional therapy has really helped me. I'm not saying that it's not beneficial for anyone; I just don't think it is right for me. A patient never fails treatment; treatment failed to help a patient-- especially when the patient is entirely willing and dying to change. 

 

I've worked in labs-- immunology, neuroscience/behavioral, and neurology/psychology--over the past 6 years, so I definitely know what the lifestyle is like. I remember my first impression of research after working a few weeks of my first research assistantship was "Wow.. this is so boring. I can't imagine myself living like this everyday." I need something more active, engaging, and personal. After all, there's a reason why researchers drink so much coffee.

People who go into a field usually (not always... but usually) do not question the legitimacy of the foundations of the field. For example, American culture emphasizes the value of autonomy, but is there really free will? Do people really have the ability to exercise executive control and override impulses? Does the body not affect the mind more than the 'mind' affect the body? The Cartesian concept I am referring to is that of mind-body dualism. I believe we need a more holistic approach, for example, embodied cognition and co-consciousness. Instead of thinking the ego is the locus of consciousness, we must think of a self-consciousness that has origins in our social spheres. I encourage you all to watch Rowan William's lecture on Empathy. Youtube for the Tanner Lecture 2014.

I want to go into medicine so terribly because I want to help on an individual level, but I love research as well. I don't know why I am so torn.. I could always do something like an MD-PhD, I suppose. More coursework... more tuition... Sigh.

 

 

It's now very clear you don't understand psychology as a field, or the options before you. There is no one "conventional psychotherapy," and if by "conventional" you mean what was being done 50 years ago then I can tell you that most people in the field think it's ineffective (based on scientific evidence). If you think research is boring and that's why researchers drink coffee,    why are you even considering it? Do something else. Quite frankly I think there's a lot to say for mind-body dualism, but to say my opinion is in the minority in psychology is a severe understatement; it is laughable to most psychologists-- I would describe most people working in the field now as eliminative materialists who believe the brain is the only thing. I would agree that most people in psychology don't question the current underpinnings, but... those underpinnings are not what you think they are.

 

P.S. MD/PhD's are generally funded. Don't worry about the "more coursework" part; you need it. Still not sure about your "love of research," though, sounds more like a love of philosophy of the mind. Which, hey, that's fine but it isn't psychology and it isn't medicine.

[Guest |||]

The only sure fire way to demonstrate knowledge of a field is to describe it as being "a bit too" followed by a metaphor

[MakeYourself]

I am likely going to offend people with this response, but I'm used to it, so here goes...

 

To the poster, you are correct. Psychology as a discipline adopts a mainly dualistic view of mind and body, along with an empirical realist view of knowledge (yes this is a generalization and there are different views blah blah blah but in a nutshell the guy is right). These assumptions have major implications for the field and also for people working in the field. Basically, you can still enter the field with a different view of self, but be prepared to feel like an outcast. There are psychologists who care about these sorts of philosophical issues (most of them are theoretical or historical psychologists). But for the most part, psychologists do not even know they hold the assumptions that they do. They are deeply misinformed about the philosophy of psychology and are blind to the importance of philosophical issues in their field. The responses in this thread are a great example of this. Most people who have responded have no idea what you are saying regarding Cartesianism. I'm not saying this to be mean, it is just a fact that psyc programs do not train their students in philosophy and most psychologists couldn't care less.

 

You might find more openminded people in a counselling program but clinical psyc and social psyc are both very Cartesian. The best option might be to be supervised by a theoretical psychologist who shares your views in a clinical program.

 

hopefully this is helpful to you, and by the way, in case you are wondering, my background is in psychology and philosophy and my area of study is in philosophy of mind.

Edited May 4, 2014 by randomness

[Guest |||]

These assumptions have major implications for the field and also for people working in the field.

 

To take it out of fluff and into reality, can you cite some examples of an individual or perspective in psychology that as a result is being limited?

 

Yes in theory of course we can think them up, but I'm interested in reality and would love to see the made claims actually backed up.

Edited May 4, 2014 by |||

[lewin]

Psychology as a discipline adopts a mainly dualistic view of mind and body

 

Okayyyyyy. Source? Find me one [social] psychology mainstream publication that argues the "mind" is anything but that's what produced by the body. People study the mind as a level of analysis but nobody would ever argue it's separate from biological processes.

 

I will agree that psychologists are empiricists who, I daresay, might view philosophical claims as speculation unless they can be empirically tested.

[MakeYourself]

Okayyyyyy. Source? Find me one [social] psychology mainstream publication that argues the "mind" is anything but that's what produced by the body. People study the mind as a level of analysis but nobody would ever argue it's separate from biological processes.

 

I will agree that psychologists are empiricists who, I daresay, might view philosophical claims as speculation unless they can be empirically tested.

 

 

Are you serious? The mind being produced by the body IS a form of dualism.

There are different degrees of dualism, what you just described is one form. The main point that I think the OP is trying to make is that psychology takes a very dichotomous view to mind/body and nature/nurture, i.e., they influence one another, but they are separate entities.

 

To take it out of fluff and into reality, can you cite some examples of an individual or perspective in psychology that as a result is being limited?

 

Yes in theory of course we can think them up, but I'm interested in reality and would love to see the made claims actually backed up.

 

For example, it affects our methods. Since the OP is talking about social psychology, it is common in this area for reasearchers to assume that phenomena such as 'personality' and 'attitudes' exist within the mind and can be accessed through introspection. Methods-wise, studies are conducted in isolated laboratories, usually in tiny cubicles where participants are given questionnaires to describe their personality traits. This is a very specific view of the 'self' that permeates psychology. The OP prefers an embodied approach, from this perspective, personality and attitudes, for example, do not exist within the mind, and the mind itself does not exist as an 'inner' entity, it is not produced by the body, it emerges in relations.

Edited May 4, 2014 by randomness

[Guest |||]

For example, it affects our methods. Since the OP is talking about social psychology, it is common in this area for reasearchers to assume that phenomena such as 'personality' and 'attitudes' exist within the mind and can be accessed through introspection. Methods-wise, studies are conducted in isolated laboratories, usually in tiny cubicles where participants are given questionnaires to describe their personality traits. This is a very specific view of the 'self' that permeates psychology. The OP prefers an embodied approach, from this perspective, personality and attitudes, for example, do not exist within the mind, and the mind itself does not exist as an 'inner' entity, it is not produced by the body, it emerges in relations.

 

And you think people who do not follow that paradigm are then seen as outcasts?

[MakeYourself]

And you think people who do not follow that paradigm are then seen as outcasts?

No, that paradigm is just one example of how one's ontological assumptions influence their work.

 

My comment about being an outcast was in regards to holding unpopular assumptions regarding the philosophy of mind. It is not impossible to have these views and be successful, but I'm just warning the OP that he/she will be part of the minority and therefore will have to push harder to make their voice heard.

[Guest |||]

No, that paradigm is just one example of how one's ontological assumptions influence their work.

 

My comment about being an outcast was in regards to holding unpopular assumptions regarding the philosophy of mind. It is not impossible to have these views and be successful, but I'm just warning the OP that he/she will be part of the minority and therefore will have to push harder to make their voice heard.

 

Right so what im pushing for is an example of that entire statement

 

Where is someone due to this topic at hand, in turn then rejected or seen as an outcast in their research?

 

If the argument boils down into, its not popular or common so youll have to push harder, I want to know where exactly it is that you will be pushing harder.

[MakeYourself]

Right so what im pushing for is an example of that entire statement

 

Where is someone due to this topic at hand, in turn then rejected or seen as an outcast in their research?

 

If the argument boils down into, its not popular or common so youll have to push harder, I want to know where exactly it is that you will be pushing harder.

 

The push comes when you have to justify yourself for taking the opposite approach (for example, in trying to publish, you would have to provide reasoning for why you are taking the particular approach that you are). And this will likely mean that people will get offended, because the approach that the OP would prefer to take is in direct contrast to the dominant approach in psychology these days.

 

For example, if you want to take an embodied approach to personality research, you would have different ontological assumptions and you would maybe choose to do more of a qualitative/field study/case study rather than a quantitative study. It is much more difficult to publish qualitative work in a top psychology journal than it is to publish quantitative work.

 

Another way in which the OP might feel outcasted is in their program. It may be possible to find select professors who share the views of the OP, but much less likely to find a whole department that shares those views. It may be difficult to connect with other students on a 'colleague' level or find others in your department to work with who shares the same views/interests as you.

[Guest |||]

The push comes when you have to justify yourself for taking the opposite approach (for example, in trying to publish, you would have to provide reasoning for why you are taking the particular approach that you are). And this will likely mean that people will get offended, because the approach that the OP would prefer to take is in direct contrast to the dominant approach in psychology these days.

 

For example, if you want to take an embodied approach to personality research, you would have different ontological assumptions and you would maybe choose to do more of a qualitative/field study/case study rather than a quantitative study. It is much more difficult to publish qualitative work in a top psychology journal than it is to publish quantitative work.

 

Another way in which the OP might feel outcasted is in their program. It may be possible to find select professors who share the views of the OP, but much less likely to find a whole department that shares those views. It may be difficult to connect with other students on a 'colleague' level or find others in your department to work with who shares the same views/interests as you.

 

 

Like I said, its easy to think of theortical problems, but can you give me an actual real world or personally made up example of such a study being rejected by the community?  Of course certain designs might be less common than others, and obviously there might need to be more detail, but an example of actual real rejection or hardship based on this would really help to illustrate the point for me.  Unless you mean the task of having to explain yourself, as opposed to having people already be familiar to your research perspective IS the hardship.

 

 

I also don't really understand the second point referring to finding a department you fit in with. 

 

"but much less likely to find a whole department that shares those views" When is this ever the case, and even worse, when would you want this to be the case? 

 

People who study the exact same phenomena disagree on fundamental principles.  Exactly, and this is true across the broad issues and smaller minute facets of psychology.  But I do not see what the problem here is?  While I might disagree with my colleagues on certain issues, I have never disrespected them - nor have I ever felt disrespected on similar grounds.  If anything the intense disagreements me and colleagues might have, is exactly what makes our relastionship so great.

 

I doubt they feel like outcasts and I certainly know I do not feel like an outcast because of disagreement on a fundamental topic.  Unless im misunderstanding you, I'm not really sure why you would?  If anything isn't such great splits across our colleagues in part what being a scientist is all about? 

 

If you personally feel like an outcast on such grounds, I'd be really curious to know why?

[Lisa44201]

Like I said, its easy to think of theortical problems, but can you give me an actual real world or personally made up example of such a study being rejected by the community?  Of course certain designs might be less common than others, and obviously there might need to be more detail, but an example of actual real rejection or hardship based on this would really help to illustrate the point for me.  Unless you mean the task of having to explain yourself, as opposed to having people already be familiar to your research perspective IS the hardship.

 

 

I also don't really understand the second point referring to finding a department you fit in with. 

 

"but much less likely to find a whole department that shares those views" When is this ever the case, and even worse, when would you want this to be the case? 

 

People who study the exact same phenomena disagree on fundamental principles.  Exactly, and this is true across the broad issues and smaller minute facets of psychology.  But I do not see what the problem here is?  While I might disagree with my colleagues on certain issues, I have never disrespected them - nor have I ever felt disrespected on similar grounds.  If anything the intense disagreements me and colleagues might have, is exactly what makes our relastionship so great.

 

I doubt they feel like outcasts and I certainly know I do not feel like an outcast because of disagreement on a fundamental topic.  Unless im misunderstanding you, I'm not really sure why you would?  If anything isn't such great splits across our colleagues in part what being a scientist is all about? 

 

If you personally feel like an outcast on such grounds, I'd be really curious to know why?

Try criticizing NHST, then publishing using a different statistical methodology (and I don't mean Bayes). Or point out that journals with high impact factors sometimes publish crappy studies, so maybe we should be critical of research even if it's published in JSPP. Or arguing that, since we haven't proven that personality constructs are linear, we shouldn't be using linear methods to analyze them. For fun, next time someone shows you the results of a linear regression, ask them to calculate how many people actually fit the predicted model (lots of fun when they have n=600 or so and 0 actually fit the regression), then point out that means the model is inaccurate. 

[MakeYourself]

Like I said, its easy to think of theortical problems, but can you give me an actual real world or personally made up example of such a study being rejected by the community?  Of course certain designs might be less common than others, and obviously there might need to be more detail, but an example of actual real rejection or hardship based on this would really help to illustrate the point for me.  Unless you mean the task of having to explain yourself, as opposed to having people already be familiar to your research perspective IS the hardship.

 

 

I also don't really understand the second point referring to finding a department you fit in with. 

 

"but much less likely to find a whole department that shares those views" When is this ever the case, and even worse, when would you want this to be the case? 

 

People who study the exact same phenomena disagree on fundamental principles.  Exactly, and this is true across the broad issues and smaller minute facets of psychology.  But I do not see what the problem here is?  While I might disagree with my colleagues on certain issues, I have never disrespected them - nor have I ever felt disrespected on similar grounds.  If anything the intense disagreements me and colleagues might have, is exactly what makes our relastionship so great.

 

I doubt they feel like outcasts and I certainly know I do not feel like an outcast because of disagreement on a fundamental topic.  Unless im misunderstanding you, I'm not really sure why you would?  If anything isn't such great splits across our colleagues in part what being a scientist is all about? 

 

If you personally feel like an outcast on such grounds, I'd be really curious to know why

 

The point is... the OP is disagreeing with the FOUNDATIONS on which the discipline of psychology has been built. This isn't a theoretical disagreement, this is a foundational one. How can this not make one feel like an outcast when they are in a field in which they fundamentally disagree with its foundational basis?

Edited May 5, 2014 by randomness

[Guest |||]

So no such example eh

 

 

 

 

 

Well, in either case, if viewing things radically differently makes you feel like an outcast, there are probably far better places to be than grad school.

[MakeYourself]

So no such example eh

 

 

 

 

 

Well, in either case, if viewing things radically differently makes you feel like an outcast, there are probably far better places to be than grad school.

 

I have already given you multiple examples and I really don't care enough about this argument to draw up more. I'm not going to give a personal example because I would like to remain anonymous.

 

Also, just because I said that the OP might feel like an outcast doesn't mean that I'm implying that he will be disrespected. What I meant by outcast is that the OP will definitely be in the minority, and any time someone is in the minority, it is possible for them to feel outcasted in different ways for whatever reason.

[Guest]

I have already given you multiple examples and I really don't care enough about this argument to draw up more. I'm not going to give a personal example because I would like to remain anonymous.

 

Also, just because I said that the OP might feel like an outcast doesn't mean that I'm implying that he will be disrespected. What I meant by outcast is that the OP will definitely be in the minority, and any time someone is in the minority, it is possible for them to feel outcasted in different ways for whatever reason.

 

I don't think it was ever a requirement for the example to have been "personal".

 

And I'd agree with cage, if feeling like a minority = outcast, probably better fields to go into.

[MakeYourself]

I don't think it was ever a requirement for the example to have been "personal".

 

And I'd agree with cage, if feeling like a minority = outcast, probably better fields to go into.

 

I gave multiple examples already that aren't personal.

 

Right, because I said feeling like a minority = outcast? Please do not twist my words around.

It's hilarious to me that this thread has nothing to do with being outcasted. I was merely mentioning that this might be a possibility in my response to the OP, yet this is the point that you guys decide to nitpick? Yes, it is possible for people to feel outcasted in grad school ... shocking!