What is I-O?

TIP Missives

In your October column, when discussing the online therapist, you asked for feedback on what people thought about doing therapy via e-mail and I found I did have rather strong opinions. First, since you dont know me, a bit about myself and my background so youll know where Im coming from on this. I started out in I-O but got seduced by the clinical side of the force, for more years than I care to think about, and returned to I-O recently. In the early 1990s I wrote a mental health column for a short-lived Internet publication called the Internet Daily News.

My opinion is that doing psychotherapy via e-mail is a crock! I question if calling it therapy is even proper, unless this cybershrink is providing a highly directive form of counseling and one chooses to call that therapy (which I dont, I call it directive counseling, perhaps with delusions of godhood). I think the most that could be provided via the medium you described (e-mail and maybe a few phone consults) is either advice or information, neither of which is psychotherapy or mental health treatment, and may not even necessarily be therapeutic. In the columns I wrote and in soliciting questions from readers, I set very clear boundaries; all I was providing was information, period! I was not treating anyone, offering any cures, providing them therapy, and since my middle name is not Dear Abby I was certainly not going to pretend I was omniscient and give them any (shudder) advice. All I provided was information, trying to stay well within what is generally accepted in psychology, about whatever topic they wrote in aboutdepression, phobias, and so forth. They got information (at no monetary charge) and I got a column written. The fact that you indicated this Dr. X claims most conditions can be treated with 510 e-mails (for hundreds of dollars) makes me think this Dr. X is highly dubious and treading on thin ethical ice (if not, in fact, committing outright fraud).

One question, how do you know Dr. X really does have a PhD and is a licensed counseling psychologist? Because the Web site said so? I claim to have a PhD and be a licensed psychologist, but for all you know, I could be some crazed kook who happened to stumble across the TIP Web page. Thats a problem with the Internetanyone can claim to be anything they want. As for Dr. Xs alleged PhD, Ive somehow gotten on a spam list and keep getting these e-mails from some organizations who want to sell me a PhD degree. Not only would I like to be taken off their spam lists, I resent that they offer to hand somebody a degreealbeit phonier than a $3 billwhen I earned mine the hard way. Cheers.

Mitch Stein, allegedly a PhD

mstein2@mail.state.tn.us 

Another Note From J.

We have often over the course of the years received the same type of personal note you mentioned in your column (in the January 2000 issue) from some J sending similar articles from some unknown Executive Focus publication. In todays mail it was the bogus September 2000 issue of Executive Focus on Time ManagementSuccess Without Sacrifice: How to Get Organized... and Get a Life. It was addressed to my boss Thomas A. Keith, who never goes by the name Thomas. Of course, the note was addressed to Thomas so that was a dead giveaway. Normally I throw these stupid things away, but this time I faxed it back with the comment that I would report them to the Federal Trade Commission for the fraudulent way they are handling their advertising since they dont even think highly enough of themselves to put their name on the mailing envelope.

Some other mailings I have gotten, directed to me personally (although others in the office have received them as well) and also the topic of a recent Dear Abby column, are the similar advertising tactics about weight control, seemingly sent by the female J. Unless people really look at these appropriately and see that there is only one potential winner in this mailing (that being the sole advertisement or service offered on the page), they believe some unknown friend is trying to be helpful. What a horrible thing to do to somebody if you arent aware of this.

Your musings brought a grin to my face, and I appreciated that you put this problem into print. Thanks.

Wendy

cgiinfo@villagenet.com 

Muchinsky Strikes a Nerve

Dear Dr. Muchinsky:

I just read your column in the October 2000 TIP and I truly enjoyed it. Its refreshing to see someone challenge the proliferation of superficial and empty research practices. There is a LOT of fluff out there that needs to be eliminatedparticularly in our field. I am relatively young, but I have read of a time when science consisted of truly original and creative ideas that were introduced and then criticized by the scientific community. Now, in these times, I see the mass production of pseudo-scientists (I speak in general terms, of course) who tow the line and support the status quo. They use all of the latest verbiage, those token buzz-words that miraculously add validity to whatever the topic might be, like best practice, lets leverage this and champion that. Phooey! In this spirit, I quoted my favorite philosopher (Karl Popper) in my presentation on the philosophy of science to the Chicago Area Mensa group last month. Popper wrote:

Every intellectual has a very special responsibility. He has the privilege and the opportunity of studying. In return, he owes it to his fellow men (or society) to represent the results of his study as simply, clearly, and modestly as he can. The worst thing that intellectuals can dothe cardinal sinis to try to set themselves up as great prophets vis--vis their fellow men and to impress them with puzzling philosophies. Anyone who cannot speak simply and clearly should say nothing and continue to work until he can do so.

Now, of course, Popper did not use the obligatory he/she, but I think the point is clear. I believe that high-sounding jargon, if not challenged, will shift the aim of our scientific efforts away from the core of the issues that we research and into some ethereal realm where there are much fewer standards to keep our activity valid. If this happens, it will be the end of meaningful scientific activity and the beginning of a time when those with the sexiest ideas are deemed the best and brightest researchersa sad day for science.

Thanks for the column; I enjoyed it, and it restored some of my faith in our discipline. This faith is rooted in the notion that it is not necessarily the content of WHAT is studied that makes research meaningful but, rather, HOW we study it. Best regards,

Patrick James Murphy

murphyp@squared.com  

* * *

Dear Dr. Muchinsky:

I enjoyed reading your eight things article in the Oct 2000 issue of TIP. In particular, I think your point #1 is important. It reminded me of some articles I had to read for a statistics course in college. I know the author was A.S. Ehrenberg. One of his papers that I think you might enjoy is:

Ehrenberg, A. S. (1977). Numerical information and short-term information. Bulletin of the British Psychological Society, 30, 409???.

This article discusses the notion that most humans can only do mental arithmetic with two or fewer digits. I think he also wrote an article titled something along the lines of The Problem of Numeracy, but I cant find the reference on PsycINFO. His argument here was that statistical results (e.g., rs) should be reported with no more than 2 decimal places.

Thought you might be interested. Sincerely,

Chuck (Charles A. Pierce, Ph.D.)

capierce@montana.edu 

* * *

Paul,

Ipso facto, I agree with your recent TIP article challenging the status quo. The other day I looked up turnover in several databases and found that it had been changed to retention, a nervous prospect for someone who had only a single clinical course.

Gary Johns

garyj@vax2.concordia.ca 

***

Paul,

Just a note to tell you how much I enjoyed your recent TIP article and to plead guilty. I have published two articles with 8 and 14 coauthors (JAP and AMJ, respectively and counting myself). Both studies came out of a class meta-analysis project. My ethical sensibilities were such that I did not feel comfortable submitting anything for publication out of this effort without permitting each student the opportunity to participate as a coauthor (normally my rule is someone must put pen to paperthis is the only time I violated that rule). Notably, one student declined to participate in the first study because he felt he did not contribute enough and it was too far afield from his area of interest (strategy). Equally notably, he is second author on the second study!

I am aware of one study that does make me feel better about my circumstances. Specifically, Peterson et al. (1996, AMJ) had 21 coauthors on a short note! I know Dr. Peterson and learned from him that this study on international management required a local contact in each country. In return for assisting in the study, each local contact was made a coauthor!

I have made a mental note to slowly compile my own list of gripes and will forward it when it reaches some minimum threshold of disk space.

Craig J. Russell

cruss@ou.edu 

* * *

Paul,

The few people in the world I know who have a true gift of humor are rare and should be highly honored for their contribution to the general state of living in this global community! You are one of the gifted. I laughed straight through The High Society... article in TIP. The bit about pencils had me nearly rolling on the floor, and I had to defog my glasses before I continued. Thank you for a bright spot of humor in the middle of a Friday afternoon.

Sally Cox