Section 2 of 2 - Prev - Next

   Most programs are 2 years in length and end in the defense of a
   thesis. Many programs offer terminal degrees, which allows individuals
   to not go on and pursue a doctoral degree, but go out into the world
   with the Master's degree alone. Master's level therapists are usually
   trained in psychotherapy techniques, but have little or no courses in
   psychological assessment, theory, and research. Most Master's students
   either go on for their doctorate or become general psychotherapists.
   
M.S.W.

   
   
     (varying terms from state to state, such as: Licensed Counselor of
     Social Work, Counselor of Social Work, Psychotherapist, Therapist,
     etc.)
     
     Master of Social Work
     
     Master's degree in social work
     
   
   
   Social work program range in length from 1 to 3 years, and usually
   include some practical experience (through either practica or
   internships) in the better programs. Like the M.S. degree above,
   social work students are trained in psychotherapy and social work
   techniques and background, but have little other background. Most
   social work students go on into careers as social workers and general
   psychotherapists. Family therapists and EAP counselors are also often
   M.S.W.'s (or L.C.S.W.'s - Licensed Counselor of Social Work, a legal
   distinction not made in the degree, but requiring the therapist to
   undergo examination for licensing in that particular state).
   
M.D. - Psychiatrist

   
   
     Medical Degree
     
     Medical degree with a specialty in psychiatry
     
   
   
   Psychiatrists start out as regular doctors, with 3 to 5 years of
   medical school. When doctors leave medical school, they then go into
   ``Residency'' at a hospital or similar facility, choosing at that time
   their speciality of practice. It is on residency (from 2 to 5 years)
   that psychiatrists learn about the specific psychotropic medications
   in practice, their side effects, etc. They may also have seminars on
   therapy, ethics, etc., but this varies widely from residency to
   residency. They have no formal background in psychological assessment
   or psychotherapy. Many psychiatrists choose to go into a
   psychoanalytic institute after residency and get more formal training
   in the practices of psychiatry through a psychoanalytic or
   psychodynamic orientation, but this is strictly a personal choice.
   Psychiatrists can prescribe medication and often practice some type of
   psychotherapy while in practice, especially if they're in a private
   practice. Psychiatrists are also trained to perform psychiatric
   evaluations.
   
   
     _________________________________________________________________
   
   I am not overly familiar with Ph.Ed.'s or any other degrees not
   mentioned here. If someone would like to provide me with specific
   information, I will be happy to include it in the next revision of
   this section. I would also be happy to hear from individuals who may
   be able to provide more specific details on any particular degree or
   its education.
   
   - John Grohol (grohol@alpha.acast.nova.edu)
   
                              NATURE VS. NURTURE
                                       
   
   
   This section is courtesy Frank Fujita
   
   
   One of the big debates that occupies a lot of many people's time is
   the Nature/Nurture controversy. It is also sometimes known as the
   genetic/environmental controversy. A lot of this controversy has been
   recently sparked by The Bell Curve, but in some form or another goes
   back to antiquity. In this controversy, we ask if the behavior of
   people is due to their Nature (or genetics) or to their Nurture (or
   environment). This is a philosophical question which science can only
   answer at the sidelines.
   
   Let me spend some time discussing some trivially true examples, so
   that we can limit the future discussion. If we take a baby human, and
   a baby monkey and give them both the best environment that we can
   imagine, the child will be radically different from the monkey and the
   differences will be almost totally caused by genetic differences. At
   the extreme, the proponents of the Nature side of the controversy
   would have us believe that the differences in human behavior are like
   the difference between human behavior and monkey behavior, just less
   extremely.
   
   Similarly, if we take identical twins, and give one the best
   environment possible, and put the other one in closet for eighteen
   years the differences will be profound, and caused totally by
   environmental differences between the two children. At the extreme the
   proponents of the Nurture side of the controversy would have us
   believe that the differences in human behavior are like the
   differences in the twin's behavior, just less extremely.
   
   Thus, we can create a scientific environment that will produce an
   almost totally genetic answer to our question, or a scientific
   environment that will produce an almost totally environmental answer
   to our question. The answer we get will be determined by the situation
   that we set up. This point cannot be overemphasized, any scientist can
   create the answer to the Nature/Nurture question that she desires.
   
   Some scientists produce results, and other scientists say that the
   scientific environmental environment was not a good one (too much like
   the monkey or twin environment above). Usually, it is the scientists
   that favor the Nurture side of the argument that actually set up the
   studies, and the scientists on the Nature side of the argument that
   criticize the studies. This leads to name calling. The Nurture
   scientists say in effect, produce data or be quiet. The Nature
   scientists say in effect, if you can't produce quality data, be quiet.
   
   
   The heritability coefficient sounds like it answers the Nature/Nurture
   question, but it only does so at the edges.
   
     Family, adoption, and twin studies and combinations of these designs
     can be used to estimate the magnitude of genetic effects as well as
     their statistical significance. This is the descriptive statistic
     called heritability. Heritability is an estimate of effect size
     given an particular mix of existing genetic and environmental
     factors in a particular population at a particular time. It is a
     descriptive statistic that estimates the proportion of phenotypic
     variance (i.e., individual difference in a population, not behavior
     of a single individual) that can be accounted for by genetic
     variance. It describes «what is» rather tan predicting «what could
     be» or «what should be.» Heritability does not imply genetic
     determinism-it refers to probabilistic propensities, not
     predetermined programming.
     
     Consider height. Correlations for first-degree relatives are about
     .45 on average, whether relatives are reared together or adopted
     apart. Identical and fraternal twin correlations are .90 and .45,
     respectively, regardless of whether they are reared together or
     adopted apart. These results indicate significant genetic effects.
     For these height data, heritability is estimated as 90%. This
     estimate of effect size indicates that, of the difference among
     individuals in height in the population sampled, most of the
     differences are due to genetic rather than environmental differences
     among individuals. (Robert Plomin, Genetics and Experience: The
     Interplay Between Nature and Nurture, p 43-44)
     
   
   
   Certainly we can change height by adding growth hormone, restricting
   vitamin intake, or any of many other environmental interventions.
   However, in the sample of people measured, at the time measured, the
   individual differences in the sample were mostly genetically caused.
   
   There are some questions about the heritability coefficient. First, in
   some studies, the computed heritability coefficient is greater than
   1.0, that is in some samples the identical twins are more than twice
   as similar as fraternal twins. Secondly, adoption studies show that
   siblings are even less alike than we would expect (based on the
   heritability coefficient). This may be because of nonadditive genetic
   variance. That is that a configuration of genes may produce a certain
   trait (say Extraversion) rather than a simple additive scenario where
   the more genes you have to be extraverted, the more extraverted you
   are. One estimate of variance in personality traits (Dunn & Plomin,
   Separate Lives: Why Siblings are so Different, p. 50) is that 40% is
   genetic, 5% is shared environmental, 35% is non-shared environmental,
   and 20% is error variance.
   
   Shared environmental differences are differences that can be given to
   everybody, say living in a big home is a shared environmental
   difference, as is a nice school, a good library, kind parents, etc.
   Non-shared environmental differences are differences that are specific
   to a child (within a family). Environmental influences in individual
   development are specific to each child rather than general to an
   entire family.
   
   One myth that I would like to dispel is that the Nature- genetic
   differences are difficult to change, but Nurture- environmental
   differences are easy to change. Many genetic defects are very easy to
   correct, and many environmental deficiencies are impossible to change.
   For example, poor eyesight is genetic, and yet there are many ways to
   correct it, eyeglasses, contact lenses, and surgery. On the other
   hand, a childhood with little protein makes one short, and once grown,
   we cannot raise the individual's height to what we might want to think
   of as her genetic potential.
   
   In short, the answer to the question «Is X caused by the environment
   or is it genetic?» is usually «Both.» Even heritability coefficients
   of 1.0 do not mean that the environment cannot (under different
   circumstances than ones in which the study was performed) affect the
   trait in question, and even coefficients of 0.0 do not mean that in
   some other sample of people that there will not be a genetic influence
   on the trait. The genetic influence may be additive (as in height) or
   non-additive (as in extraversion). The environmental influences may be
   things that the parents (or government) can change, or they may be
   non-shared environmental differences that cannot be fine-tuned with
   our present, crude understanding of the influences of the environment
   on behavior. Lastly, whether the influences are genetic or
   environmental do not inform us as to whether the trait will be easy to
   change or not - some genetic traits will be easy to fix (like
   eyesight) some environmental traits will be hard to fix.
   
Nature vs. nurture

   {Further Reading]
   
   [Anastasi, Anna] (1958) Psychological Asessment 3rd ed.
   
   This is the classic tome which outlines the current position as
   regards the nature/nurture controversy.
   
   [Brand, Christofer] (1996) The g Factor London: Wiley
   
   This one will probably become a classic. The most sober and
   comprehensive discussion of intelligence and intelligence research
   that I have seen.
   
   [Herrnstein, R., & Murray, C.] The Bell Curve New York: Free Press
   
   A very controversial book, in several senses. Even as its statistics
   and psychology are sound, the authors seem to believe that it is
   possible to infer political conclusion directly on basis of scientific
   evidence, a technique of argumentation which is in itself as
   controversial as the research which is presented.
   
                                ABOUT THIS FAQ
                                       
   
   
The Author

   
   
   I'm a resident and citizen of Norway, a small European country not
   particularly noted for their psychologists, tho some of you may have
   heard of Helga Eng (child psychology) or Ragnar Rommetveit (psychology
   of language). I'm a student majoring in clinical psychology. This
   takes 6 1/2 years in Norway. English is not my first language, but
   more than half of the texts we read are American.
   
Request for contributions

   
   
   Even though the need for a FAQ has been discussed and apparent for a
   long time, no one has actually taken the time and made the effort to
   write one. So I did it. Here it is. Hope you like it. If not, please
   tell me.
   
   I'd very much like to pull this FAQ out of its current beta stage. I'm
   not sure when that will be, but I need answers at least to what it
   takes to become a psychologist in the USA, which is where, oddly
   enough, most of the questions come from. Also, intro text book
   recommendations - and recommendtaions of literature on psychotherapy.
   I'm mostly familiar with Tim Anderson, Harold Goolishian, Steve de
   Shazer, Paul Watzlawick and Gregory Bateson. What do pscyhodynamically
   oriented therapists read? What do the ca. 50% who do not do therapy
   recommend? Also, there should be a short piece on NLP. Preferably
   something that most regular contributors to the arguments (you know
   who I mean!) can agree about.
   
Coming in the next version of the FAQ

   
   
   The next version will be a maintenacne release. Please don't mail me
   about topics you want to see covered, I'll let the majority rule
   (That's all I've got time for). Please do mail me information to
   include in the FAQ.
   
                            ABOUT THIS DOCUMENT ...
                                       
   
   

Section 2 of 2 - Prev - Next

© allanswers.org | Terms of use