Reddit mentions: The best medical psychology books

Fear cuts deeper than swords

1. Something that is grey - Wreck This Journal! A post on /r/travel turned me on to this nifty little book that encourages you to do and look at those things you might not otherwise on your vacations and trips. Main WL
   
2. Something reminiscent of Rain Freshwater Pearl Drop Earrings. This one may be a stretch, but as soon as I read the item list I thought of these. I've always liked calling them rain drops instead of tear drops. Main WL
   
   
3. Something food related that is unusual I didn't think the frying pan on my list would really count as "unusual", hope this counts as "food related." These are a set of vitamins that I saved for my fiance; he loves his drink, and I love him to be healthy. Main WL
   
4. Something on your list for someone else This pinstripe fedora is for my fiance. He's had an identical fedora since we began dating several years ago and he's incredibly sentimental about it. The poor thing is worn out though, and I'm not sure if it can be restored. If it can't, I'm hoping he'll be able to learn to love a new one so that we can retire the original respectfully. Main WL
   
5. Something related to cats I hope that this counts even though I just noticed it's become unavailable! This reminds me of the book Catzilla that was read to me in elementary school and seems perfect for my own vicious kitties. Main WL
   
6. A book you should read I will shamelessly endorse Karen Miller's writing everywhere I go and to everyone I meet. Seriously. She's fantastic. Poor reviews on Amazon, but I chock that up to people not understanding proper plot development. You can trust me on that, I almost have a degree. Books WL
   
7. Something for less than $1.00 This was not on my list previously, but it makes me feel sympathy towards home-school moms to need such a tranquil book cover.
   
8. Something that is not useful Being able to do calligraphy isn't really a useful art these days, but whenever I see those strokes on /r/penmanshipporn I feel I simply must learn how to do it. It's beautiful. And my handwriting is dreadful. Main WL
   
9. A movie that everyone should watch My Neighbor Totoro! I actually just watched this myself for the first time last week! It's just one of those movies that makes you happy and leaves you with a smile. We all need those movies for the days that just get to be too much. Main WL
   
10. Something useful for when the zombies attack It doubles as a weapon AND a tool. Can't always buy replacements when the undead are running amok! Main WL
    
11. Something that would have a profound impact on your life Fitness has become very important to me in the last year or so and I would like very much to one day have a home gym so that I might always keep myself healthy and fit. This particular item would help me tone my stubborn tummy area and is one of my favorite tools at the gym I work out in. Main WL
    
12. Add-on item Just my luck, I would discover add-on items the day this contest begins. I did add these before I saw the contest, but last night I began researching hair products and came across John Frieda. Ordered one product already, hoping to try out these others soon! Main WL
    
13. The most expensive item on your list Oh boy. I guess my dream item is actually a toothbrush. My fiance has awful brushing habits. His parents just never really made him do it. Since we've gotten together I've kind of taken up a "mom" role in this area and made sure that he cleans his teeth daily, but there's damage to his gums from neglect. I did a lot of research on the products on the market and this seems like the best tool to help him get healthier gums. He's not totally on board with spending so much on a toothbrush, but I want and need him to be healthy in every way. You know? Main WL
    
14. Something bigger than a breadbox The rolling massager is your best friend and your worst enemy at the gym. Using this item after your workout helps to minimize your soreness the next day, but I won't lie. It hurts a bit to use. Main WL
    
15. Something smaller than a golf ball Who doesn't love jewelry for your ears? Jewelry WL
    
16. Something that smells wonderful Eucalyptus oil! Main WL
    
17. A SFW toy I saw this on Top Gear UK and I must have it. When asked by a friend why I would ever need such a thing, I promptly responded, “For when I go spelunking.” Toys WL
    
18. Something helpful for going back to school As an English major, I have to buy a LOT of books. My poor overburdened bookshelf is in desperate need of relief. If this weren't my last year, I would absolutely have to buy another bookshelf. As it stands, I'll have to buy a new one soon regardless. Avid readers live here. Main WL
    
19. Something related to my current obsession I am an unashamed, unapologetic Whovian.
    Main WL
    
20. Something awe inspiring - speaking of Whovians Isn't this fantastic? I've always said the best thing after a bath is the snuggle up with the TARDIS. Gifts WL
    
21. Made in Oregon - I've been doing this contest since 7 a.m. I could use this right about now
    
    WHEW. That took way longer than I thought it would but I think I found everything but what your name is! Thanks for the contest, I had a blast!

You are turning things around. One of the biggest mistakes we make as human beings is to wait or hope for an outside confirmation so that we may love ourselves. This might work for those who are 'lucky', but in the end they are even worse off because they start believing this trick actually makes them happy.

Truth is it doesn't. It only satisfies their ego, which leaves their inner selves permanently at a loss. A deep unfulfillable void that they do not understand and try to fill with external validation.

True happiness comes from tapping into your inner self and its capacity for love. All human beings have an endless source of love stored within themselves. It is once you love yourself regardless of any external factor that you will be able to truly exploit this resource and love not only yourself, but your life and everything (including other people in it).

The fact that nothing really matters comes to its true strengths through this notion. Not even your own external appearance matters, so don't let it impact your self love. The only thing impacting your self love should be you.

This book might be of use to you. http://www.amazon.com/Self-Compassion-Psychotherapy-Mindfulness-Based-Practices-Transformation/dp/0393711005/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1451060574&sr=1-3&keywords=self+compassion

Also meditation can help to work away your judgement of reality and become more present in the moment. This will help with breaking through conditioning and accessing your inner self.

Think of any one person in your life whom you love the most. Now imagine if you would love yourself and life like that. It might seem impossible, but it isn't. It's a way of living.

>About half.

Ah, yes, >60% is so rare. As rare as the Hope Diamond.

>And that's this poll.

This "poll" is the APPIC match survey, so it's everyone participating in round one of the match.

Nice try at dismissing data that doesn't agree with your argument. You'll go far in science.

>If you go to actual universities websites and Check around you will see that there are only a handful that are as high as 50% most were in the 20-30% range.

Check Norcross' book.

>There was a thread a while back discussing this with a lot of links and comments from people who choose applicants.

Huh, there's so many threads and links, yet you can't post a single one, but you sure can dismiss the APPIC data I provided. Again, you're quite the scientist.

>Considering most take on 20 or few students and it being hard to get in, . As a BA student your likelihood of getting in is even lower.

Again, the stats don't support your argument. >60% don't have master's degrees prior to admission to doctoral programs, thus their likelihoods of admission were not lower.

>I've never had a professor that got in a PhD program without their masters.

Oh no, you bested me with your anecdotes! I....am.....defeated.....

>However I have friends in other fields who have. It seems much more common in other fields. I think that's because there is less competition.
>
>
>If you are competing with Msc graduates who have a few published papers and you are just a B.A with some side experience, you aren't going to beat them.

Nice false equivalency there. Clinical programs care less about your master's degree and more about the research you've done. All things being equal, having just a BA vs having a master's degree isn't a tie breaker. It comes down to fit, personal characteristics, and what research ideas you bring to the lab.

Finally, as I've alluded to Norcross' book in the past, I thought I'd quote directly from it:
https://www.amazon.com/Insiders-Graduate-Programs-Counseling-Psychology/dp/1462525725/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1510792237&sr=8-1&keywords=Insider%27s+Guide+to+Graduate+Programs+in+Clinical+and+Counseling+Psychology

>A Master’s Degree First?
A common question during our graduate school workshops is whether students should secure a master’s degree before seeking the doctorate. Fortunately, our workshop participants and you realize that no simple answer is possible to such a complex question. Nonetheless, the following are some broad reasons for seeking a master’s degree first.

>Low grade-point average. The vast majority of APA-accredited doctoral programs will not consider applicants with a GPA below 3.0.

>Weak GRE scores. Similarly, most university-based doctoral programs rarely accept bachelor’s-level applicants whose combined Verbal and Quantitative scores fall below 1,000 (or 145 on the revised scale).

>Scarce research or clinical experiences. Doctoral admission committees understandably desire that
you have had some direct experience with those activities you intend to pursue for a lifetime.

>Uncertain career goal. Indecision about your subfield in psychology, or outside of psychology, is a strong indicator for a master’s program initially.

>Late application. Doctoral programs hold to earlier deadlines than do master’s programs, so those students waiting too late to apply will be redirected to master’s programs.

>Terse letters of recommendation. By virtue of late transfer into a university or into the psychology major, some students lack sufficient contact with faculty for them to write positive and detailed letters of recommendation expected by doctoral programs.

>Inadequate coursework in psychology. Doctoral programs require a minimum level of education in the discipline prior to acceptance, typically at least 15 to 18 credits of psychology course work.

>Completing a rigorous master’s program in psychology can correct many of the foregoing impediments to acceptance into a doctoral program. As we describe in Chapter 8, students typically strengthen their grade point average, acquire clinical and research experience, sharpen their career goals, and establish close relationships with faculty during the 2 full-time years of a master’s program. For these and other reasons, many students opt for a master’s degree at one institution before seeking the doctorate at another. Doctoral psychology faculty were surveyed in detail regarding the value of a clinical master’s degree for gaining admission to their programs (Bonifzi, Crespy, & Rieker, 1997). Assuming a good undergraduate GPA and good GREs, the effect of having a master’s degree on the applicant’s chances for admission was negative for 7% of the programs, neutral for 48% of the programs, and positive for 45% of the programs. However, assuming mediocre GPA and mediocre GREs, the effect of having a master’s was more neutral than positive overall. Put another way, it is clearly the applicant’s overall credentials—rather than possession of a master’s degree per se—that carries the day. This same study (Bonifzi et al., 1997) and our own research (Mayne et al., 1994; Norcross et al., 2004) consistently demonstrate that Ph.D. clinical programs hold a positive bias toward baccalaureatelevel applicants. By contrast, Psy.D. clinical, Ph.D. counseling, and Ph.D. school psychology programs view master’s degree recipients more favorably and accept higher proportions of master’s-level applicants. Keep these biases in mind as you consider the selection criteria of graduate schools.

> Or that communism creates starvation (joke)

I don't think this is a joke. While causal designs would be difficult to apply, the spatio-temporal correlation is hard to ignore.


>Regarding causality- as you know that’s nearly impossible to prove in the social sciences.

Actually, these days the application of designs and approaches that provide strong support for causal claims have become quite prevalent. Some standard references-



1

2

3

4

good framework reference or a slightly heavier read

and the old classic


In fact, the Nobel prize in economics this year went to some people who have built their careers doing exactly that

It's actually become quite hard to publish in ranking journals in some fields without a convincing (causal) identification strategy.


But we digress.


>We will never be able to do an apples to apples study between heterosexual and homosexual child rearing for some of the reasons you mentioned above. (Diversity of relationship styles, not both biological parents within gay/lesbian couples)

In this case it isn't far fetched at all. The data collection for the survey data used in the study you linked could just as easily have disagregated the parents involved in same sex romantic relationships instead of pooling them. If I understood correctly, the researcher had obtained the data as a secondary source, so they didn't have control over this.

Outcomes for children in the foster care system are well studied, so one could in principal easily replicate the study comparing outcomes between children in the foster care system and those adopted into homes shared by stable same sex couples (you couldn't likely restrict it to married same sex couples, though, because laws permitting same sex civil marriage are too recent to observe outcomes).

>My bottom line-that I don’t see many disagree with if they are being intellectually honest, is a stable monogamous heterosexual family structure is the best model for immediate families. Or would you disagree?

But that's not the question at hand, is it? What we are interested in here is comparing kids bouncing around the state care system to those adopted into homes with two same-sex parents in a stable relationship.

That is exactly my point. The comparison you propose is uninformative relative to the question of permitting same sex couples to "foster to adopt". Because the counterfactual for those children is not likely to be a "stable monogamous heterosexual family". It is bouncing around the foster care system.

Positive psychology is a field within "regular" psychology, and is a discipline that concerns itself with "The study of what constitutes the pleasant life, the engaged life, and the meaningful life". The positive psychology movement has been spearheaded by Martin Seligman, former head of American Psychological Association. He has several books on Amazon.

A good place to start would probably be Flourish by Martin Seligman.

If you want to dig further I can recommend [Character Strengths and Virtues] (https://www.amazon.com/Character-Strengths-Virtues-Handbook-Classification-ebook/dp/B0054WFG4Y/). I think this book is great, though it is expensive.

Another good one is Positive Psychology in Practice: Promoting Human Flourishing in Work, Health, Education, and Everyday Life, which is a collection of academic articles on positive psychology.

Edit: The wikipedia page also has some stuff that might be interesting.

Some of these points aren't quite right for a neuropsychologist. A neuropsychologist typically does a PhD in clinical psychology, with a year-long internship in neuropsych followed by a postdoctoral position in neuropsychology. They then need to get licensed and often board certified.

Clinical psych PhD programs are very competitive, but the good part is that good programs are fully funded, meaning that not only are you not charged tuition but you are paid a stipend for a research or teaching fellowship or a grant requiring no additional work. They pay you to get a PhD. If your grades, test scores, recommendations, and research experience are top notch, it's very easy to finish your PhD with no more debt than you finished undergrad with.

There are also clinical psych PsyD programs, which are like a PhD but more geared toward clinical practice as opposed to research careers. There are a few good PsyD programs, but unfortunately a lot of for profit PsyD programs aren't really worth your time and money. These have high class sizes (a typical incoming PhD class will be around 5 students, whereas it could be 100 or more for a PsyD program), and they typically don't offer full tuition remission or stipends. That is actually a pretty good way to determine if it's a good quality PsyD program: class sizes and amount of funding provided. You should also look at the number of students in the program that match to APA accredited internships on their first try.



The book Insider's Guide to Graduate Programs in Clinical and Counseling Psychology is the best resource for getting into a clinical psych program.

source: I have a PhD in clinical psychology.

Read William Glasser's classic educational book The Quality School. There's no such thing as a bad kid and there's no such thing as a lazy/unmotivated kid. All children are motivated by something, just often not in the direction we desire them to be motivated. The key to good teaching is to hone in on what motivates them - that which is 'needs satisfying' to them - and work from there. A lot of it has to do with control - most students need a modicum of control in the classroom to be motivated by the activities put forth - their needs satisfied by such control.

If you click on that Amazon link above, you can read the first few pages of the book, which in and of themselves are very helpful.

Also, watch School of Rock with Jack Black and see an entertaining and extreme example of a teacher discovering this process on his own. For students to succeed, they must feel the work in important to them - in their own lives. Without that component the best you can hope for is a quiet classroom enforced by rigid authority. Get the kids to internalize that what is occurring is important to them as individuals and your discipline problems will disappear. But to 'get there' you must first start with discovering what is important to them. You probably need to do a time out from the curriculum and do a couple days of group discussion, bringing out what will be seen as important to them as individuals and the group as a whole, and settling on some norms based upon that discussion.

If you are praying about it - pray to know what is important to your students and ask for guidance as to how you can channel that which is important to them into your lessons.

I haven't read it, but I can tell you that the consensus about it in the History of Philosophy community is that it's pretty bad. I've only seen it cited in history of philosophy journals as a foil. For a broad introduction, I've heard Kenny's new work is pretty good. And I rather like Copleston's History, though it's nine ~500 page volumes. I think your best bet, though, is just to read some philosophical classics. Perhaps Plato's Five Dialogues (https://www.amazon.com/Plato-Dialogues-Euthyphro-Apology-Classics/dp/0872206335/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1467069583&sr=8-1&keywords=five+dialogues), Descartes' Meditations (https://www.amazon.com/Meditations-First-Philosophy-Hackett-Classics/dp/0872201929/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1467069631&sr=8-1&keywords=meditations+descartes), Russel's Problems of Philosophy (https://www.amazon.com/Problems-Philosophy-Bertrand-Russell/dp/1613821875/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&qid=1467069667&sr=8-7&keywords=problems+of+philosophy), and maybe Searle's Brief Introduction to Mind (https://www.amazon.com/Mind-Brief-Introduction-Fundamentals-Philosophy/dp/0195157346/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1467069693&sr=8-1&keywords=searle+mind).

There are better, more important, and more recent works than these, but I think these are good intros to philosophy as a whole for two reasons: 1) these are very representative of Ancient, Modern, Early Analytic, and contemporary philosophy of mind. And 2) these are all pretty easy. Philosophy's batshit complicated, at times; but none of these are more difficult than they have to be (and yet, they're not Idiot's Guides … )

I'll take number 4.

My favorite intro book on media and politics is Media Politics: A Citizen's Guide by Shanto Iyengar. It's a great textbook for teaching undergrads and covers pretty much everything.

For general theories of how political elites interact with the media, I would recommend Cook's Governing with the News, Patterson's Out of Order, and Zaller's A Theory of Media Politics (It's an unpublished manuscript, so just Google it and it'll come up.)

There's a ton of great work on the concept of media bias, but I'll give you two older works that I think capture the intersection of journalistic norms and coverage really well. Check out Gans's Deciding What's News and Schudson's Discovering the News. There's also work that looks at how economic forces lead to bias. See Hamilton's All the News That's Fit to Sell for an intro to that.

On media effects on behavior, start with Iyengar and Kinder's News that Matters. Beyond that, I'm partial to Graber's Processing the News, Soroka's Negativity in Democratic Politics, and Ladd's Why Americans Hate the Media and How it Matters.

If you're interested in how recent changes to the media environment (cable TV, internet, etc.) have affected things, I would recommend Prior's Post-Broadcast Democracy, Arceneaux and Johnson's Changing Minds or Changing Channels, Levendusky's How Partisan Media Polarize America, and Hindman's The Myth of Digital Democracy.

Finally, I'd be remiss if I didn't recommend some Lippmann or some Edelman. Those are for more high-minded/theory-driven thinking about how the media constructs our realities.

I know that's a lot, but there's a ton of stuff I'm cutting out as is (nothing about selective exposure or motivated reasoning, barely touching on the framing literature). If you have any more specific questions about American media, I can probably narrow it down some more.

Oh, and a couple quick recommendations on the other questions (which aren't really my specialty). I really liked Democracy for Realists by Achen and Bartels. Frances Lee's new book on political messaging in Congress is pretty interesting. And I'm a subscriber to the legislative subsidy school of thought on interest groups.

• richard schwartz: website. he's written a ton of books as well & has an audiobook with parts work meditations (if that's up your alley). if you search for him on youtube, a gajillion videos come up. really good stuff. if you decide to purchase any of his books, make sure to compare prices with what's in the store on his website; often the ones on his site are cheaper than amazon & other places (even used versions).
  
• derek scott: youtube, website. if you google "derek scott IFS PDF" you can find some handouts/condensed explanations&explanations of parts work.
  
• since you're wanting to use art/drawing to further explore your system, you might really like lisa spiegel's IFS therapy with children & michelle glass's daily parts meditation.
  
• i've also found bonnie weiss's IFS workbook helpful in teaching me how to approach my parts (even the "difficult" ones!) with compassion & curiosity.
  
• this worksheet (zen & internal family systems: working with parts) is a really nice resource, too.
  
• matt licata (i refer to his facebook posts when i'm having trouble accessing Self/feeling really blended with various parts)
  
• there are also two groups on facebook (i don't post, just read, & still get a lot from them): IFS community group (is a mix of therapists & non-therapists; derek scott sometimes participates there) & IFS daily reflections.
  
  i hope that list isn't overwhelming. internal family systems/parts work has been so so so beneficial to me as i work on my own growth/recovery, so i've done a lot of reading to try to absorb as much as i can. i hope that as you learn more about your parts & how to interact with each of them that the self-compassion & tenderness you've expressed here will just grow & grow & become second nature/as automatic as breathing, & that you will heal more & more deeply. 💚

I highly recommend John Searle's Mind: A Brief Introduction.

Searle's is a bit biased towards his argument for "Emergent consciousness" throughout the book but he does give a very thorough and accessible overview of the history and important arguments/debates about consciousness/free will/personal identity. Also tons of helpful references at the end of each chapter that will lead you towards many of the notable papers. and books if you wish to follow up in more detail.

The books main strength lies in Searle's prose which (in this book at least) is engaging, easy to follow, full of life and energy and informative at the same time.

It is a bit older than the books mentioned by wyzaard above, so it might better serve as a compliment to read alongside the texts he recommended.

I'm not really sure, but I'd surmise a few reasons:

From the humanities angle, on initial appraisal his ideas look like both a kind of essentialism and /or metaphysical in a 'mystical' sense, both categories of which sit in difficult or contested spaces of perceived relevancy. Again it depends on the institution and the individuals involved.

I read an article once, I forget where now, which concerned the history of how psychoanalysis became proliferated in the academy in France primarily through friends and compatriots of Freud who championed his work and spread his ideas. Jung didn't receive the same support or validation via this route (this possibly also relates to the split between Jung and Freud; the affects of it reverberated in numerous ways). French critical theory and philosophy for example, and of the twentieth century at least, hugely influential in the arts, aesthetic and literary theory, is heavily Freudian and/or neo-Freudian. Jung is virtually absent here.

From the sciences side his ideas find difficulties in being experimentally verified (even though, intriguingly, his conceptions are tracking out as correspondent to hypothetical positions being established in regions of neuroscience or work with dreams for example. This is discussed in papers and books by a neuroscientist Erik Goodwyn, and Jungian analysts Jean Knox and John Haule, among others).

Alongside this the thing with Jung is you have to do stuff and engage regions of consciousness both interiorly and externally in a different manner; ego becomes a shifted smaller center of consciousness, assumptions are deconstructed, everything initially starts to fall apart, looks frightening or becomes strange (i.e., psyche and world become entangled in a puzzling manner, projections have to be identified, reversed, owned etc etc). There's effort and work involved in employing his ideas, and they're an idiosyncratic paradigm, they aren't easily able to be plugged into more contemporary conceptions and models unless this has become developed in ones thought and, arguably, post-Jungian developments have become factored in (such as is pointed out in the OP here for example; others ideas and models trace back to or out of Jung).

The process he elucidates and maps - which he is also careful to highlight he was only a pioneer in and others need to pick up the work to continue it - is transformative and significantly involves altered states and conditions of consciousness, also a still controversial and contested space with varying degrees of receptivity or spaces of validation in the academy (again it depends). It is also slow and painful and deeply complex with multiple layers, possibilities of reading and entry points. Where is the time or space to really engage in this kind of material in academic performance contexts? I struggled with it in a fine arts context (in the end I decided I wasn't really doing art, nor was an artist, but was primarily engaged in a kind of psychotherapy).

That's just some of my musings on possibilities, take that with a salt-mine of salt ;). There's probably more accurate takes on it, and no doubt Jungian scholars, like the brilliant Sonu Shamdasani and other post-Jungians have a more informed point of view (so looking into their writing about it is probably the way to go to gain a clearer vision on this matter).

I've just become aware of a book that Dr Susan Rowland has written called C.G. Jung in the Humanities: Taking the Soul's Path. Perhaps some of the concerns linked to your question are discussed in there?

There was also recently a post and thread that some of the community contributed other takes on regarding how Jung is situated in psychology or among the psychotherapies here. There's some good moments of insight in that content even if it does wander a bit into other thickets..

OP; thanks for sharing this post, a good spot. Apologies if my own comments here have diverted into other regions of concern..

https://www.amazon.com/Study-Less-Learn-More-Complete-ebook/dp/B00EDXKECY/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1500947502&sr=8-1&keywords=learn+more+study+less
That book is pretty cool, it's on the topic and if you haven't already taken a free kindle unlimited trial you can read it for free. To directly answer your questions, everyone agrees pictures and diagrams are great, but not if just directly copying everything from the book. Most agree verbatim copying of anything is bad, always reword. I found some sections I just don't want to take many notes for, like subnetting. I know I'm just going to have to drill those until I can do them in super short times, therefore taking detailed notes seems pointless. In the book, the author makes the case that questions make some of the best notes. He also goes into some bits of info about the relationship between hindsight bias and short term memory, and how they can lull you into a false sense of security in not taking enough notes. The TLDR of his method in relation to notes though is: ask questions, and answer them. Include anything you think you might not already know. Avoid using the same language as the book, even though that slows you down. Definitely also write down questions even if you don't immediately know the answer.

> Your argument boils down to "Peterson said this idea is based in Pragmatism, but his argument isn't included in any textbooks on pragmatism." Well, sure. He's not reiterating American Pragmatism, he is putting forth something a little different. I think it's a bit of a strawman/sleight of hand to say "ah this doesn't fit perfectly into the Pragmatist box so it's not valid". Like it doesn't necessarily matter what Rorty's opinion on Peterson would be. There's no truth value inherent to Rorty's opinion inherently.

I didn't make an argument, so I can tell you're already misreading my comment. And even if I did, reframing it the way you did is incredibly uncharitable. Reframing like that is a good way to pick a fight, though. I'd have thought a JBP fan would be sensitive to that. Christ.

I was saying: I consider myself a pragmatist and find JBP's use of pragmatic ideas confusing, so understanding pragmatism probably isn't sufficient for understanding JBP. 'Check out American Pragmatism' isn't going to cut it.

(Well, ok, I guess that is technically an argument, but I don't think it's what you meant.)

And then I went on to describe aspects of JBP's thought/approach that I find hard to square with pragmatism. I'm not making a definitive case that he's not a pragmatist, whatever that might mean. I'm more talking out loud about my own confusion.

Lastly, your response is incredibly arrogant. What do you know of my understanding of pragmatism? "Textbooks?" Read my some of my top comments and posts and you'll see that I've (successfully) staked my livelihood on pragmatism. So, I'm not unlike JBP in that regard, I suppose.

> I mean, a 100% Pragmatist would assert that the Pragmatist definition of truth is superior, literally by definition of what it means to be a Pragmatist fully, right?

Absolutely not. Asserting something is superior would require understanding the myriad of ways that thing interfaces with with the world. You'd have to be pretty arrogant to claim that.

> If a Pragmatist doesn't advocate for a Pragmatist definition of truth over other types, then what does it even mean to consider them a Pragmatist?

A relevant parable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant

It's not about advocating for one type of truth other other truths, it's about the way we approach the concept of truth. At the end of it all, you have to keep in mind that you might be utterly confused about what's really going on, like the blind man who thinks the elephant's trunk is a snake. Nominally, the blind man is wrong, but nevertheless the fact that he said it is a snake tells us something about both the blind man and the elephant, assuming we're willing to investigate deeper.

That process of inquiry, will, in the limit, converge to the truth. (This is how both Peirce and Dewey talk about truth. James is the one who said "That which is useful is true", which I think is more digestible but less accurate.)

In mathematics, for example, I'm not going to be using the pragmatic theory of truth because I've constrained the domain of discourse in a way that makes it unnecessary. I think there is a way to subsume this flavor of truth in a pragmatic concept of truth, but I don't know how useful or correct it is.

JBP is really bad at this stuff, BTW. He chides Sam Harris for having a "13 year old atheist's understanding of religion", but has a first-year undergrad's understanding of mathematics:

1. https://i.redd.it/s5p1v2gf8eb01.jpg (from Maps of Meaning)
   
2. http://archive.is/khKVm
   
   The fact that he's been confused about Gödel for 20+ years while still being confident enough to write/tweet stuff like that really gives me pause.
   
   > Again, this is the logical fallacy/sleight of hand argument you made earlier about "No True Pragmatist", but Pragmatism is about asserting a method of obtaining truth that has more merit than other methods. That's no less sure than Peterson's Maps of Meaning perspective.
   
   This is almost exactly wrong. I mean, you can read Peirce and he talks about this explicitly. Pragmatism has a meta-theory of inquiry. Peirce and Dewey talk at length about inquiry and the properties a process of inquiry must have if it is to be self-corrective and truth-converging.
   
   See, e.g., Dewey's Logic - The Theory of Inquiry.
   
   I would challenge JBP to identify what self-corrective aspects his "Maps of Meaning" system has. 50 years from now, how will his system have evolved? What directions might it evolve in? What questions can't it answer? By what process to we reconcile his way of understanding with other facts?
   
   These are things I've never heard him talk about, but I admit I'm turned off because he seems less concerned with refining his system and more concerned with demonstrating that his system accounts for everything thrown its way.
   
   To me, this is one of the most damning critiques of religion. Let's say we're investigating God. What has religion taught us about God in the last 100 years that it was not able to teach us 1000 years ago?
   
   There might be "truth" in religion, in the sense that it maps onto something about our psyche, but by what process is it converging towards anything?
   
   Even JBP realizes this is a problem from a pragmatic perspective, which I think is why he always argues that the Christ story is the maximally tragic tale and therefore no refinement is necessary insofar as it's meant to capture some kind of tragic archetype.

Well, if you want a concentrated course of study you might consider looking for secondary sources that focus on particular areas of research in philosophy rather than trying to read very few (5-10) authors in real depth. I see Kant has been suggested, for example, and while I would never doubt his importance as a philosopher, if you set out with the intention of reading the bulk of his works as you say you might you would have to tackle a great deal of dry, technical material which I think would prove to be a lot more work than you could expect. Same could be said for Aristotle, Plato, Hegel, Descartes, nearly anyone you really might care to list. I don't know if you've read much philosophy, but you might instead look at something like an introduction to philosophy, an intro to ethics, or an intro to the philosophy of mind. These are only some examples, there are books like this for pretty much any area of study that attracts your interest. I'm sure others could provide suggestions as well.

Follow up to my previous post (reached character limit).

So both IQ and socioeconomic status are heritable, but to what extent can the same genes explain variation in both traits? This study looked at the correlation between genetic similarity, SES similarity, and IQ similarity in a sample of 3,000 unrelated children. Their genetic sample consisted of roughly 1.7 million SNPs and was therefore large, but still far less than the entire human genome. IQ was measured at ages 7 and 12. Family SES was measured at ages 2 and 7. They found that variation in the portions of the genome they analyzed accounted for about 30% of variation in both IQ and SES. In this sample, IQ and family SES correlated at .31 and 94% of that correlation of mediated by genetics. In other words, the reason why high SES 7 year olds were smarter than average was almost entirely because they had “smart genes”. The correlation between family SES at age 7 and IQ at age 12 was .32 and 56% of that relationship was genetically mediated. In other words, about half of the relationship between intelligence at age 12 and SES at age 7 was explained by people having smart genes.

This is direct evidence showing that a substantial amount, likely more than half, of the correlation between parental SES and IQ in adolescence is explained by the parents having smart genes and passing them on to their kids.

Now lets compare the IQ of black populations to poorer populations of other races. Using GDP per capita data from World bank and IQ data from this study you find that blacks in America have a GDP per capita of 20,458 (This can range depending on what figure you use for African American contribution to GDP, this is a low figure) and an average IQ of 85. There are many other countries with few blacks that have lower GDPs per capita and higher IQ. Estonia, Chezk Republic, Lithuania, Latvia, Poland, Hungary, Croatia, Russia, Romania, Belarus, Vietnam, Ukraine, Mongolia, Serbia, China, and others all have lower GDPs and higher average IQs.

Now lets look at SAT scores. One study found that if average SAT scores of high school students are broken down by their parent’s SES (for both Blacks and Whites), Whites from families who earn less than $20,000 a year do just as well on the SAT as Blacks from families that earn more than $200,000 a year. Other studies have found that Whites from severely impoverished families who earn under $10,000 a year tend to have higher SAT scores than Blacks who earn over $100,000 a year. Now obviously SAT scores are not equal to IQ. But they are related.

Another thing that's interesting, is that the richer people you compare, the larger that Black-White IQ gap becomes. In this book 32 studies were analyzed and found a mean Black-White IQ gap of 12 points between people of low SES and 20.3 points between people of high SES. This has been replicated multiple other times, including in Murray's The Bell Curve.

Now lets look at racial and IQ difference over time. The U.S. Census began collecting information on individuals income in 1939. Since then, Black wage relative to White wage have risen from 44% to 67% in 1989. Using data from the US Census Bureau between the 1950’s and 2014, there was a dramatic reduction in the size of the Black White income gap. The median income of Whites went from 2.4 time larger than the median Black income during the 1950’s, to only around 1.3 times larger in 2014. Rates of post-secondary educational attainment revealed the exact same pattern. In 1940, Whites were nearly 4 time more likely than Blacks to have a Bachelor’s degree or higher. However, as of 2014, Whites were only 1.5 times more likely than Blacks to have a BA or higher. All and all, the historical trends reveal huge reductions in the education and income gaps between Blacks and Whites.

But during this time, the white/black IQ gap hasn't really changed. In this book it's reported that IQ testing during the first world war gave Blacks a mean IQ of 83. Today the average IQ of blacks is 85. Thus, the Black-White IQ gap has been reduced by 2 points during a time period in which the black/white socio-economic gap has been reduced by at least 50%.

So overall how socioeconomic status influences IQ is unknown. But it is important to realize that money, or class, does not magically make people smarter. But yes nutrition and cognitively stimulating environments likely have an effect, but I wouldn't conclude them to be the major factors.

Overall it seems that intelligence is about 80% nature 20% environment.

Ok, so you said that "there are no objects that exist and events that occur in the world outside the mind" and then proceeded to tell me believing otherwise is just an assumption. How is that different from what I did? I actually gave a substantial starting point from where we can continue.

"Just as humans are born with a characteristic anatomical structure that differentiates our species from other animal creatures, so also do we enter embodied life with a psychical organization that predetermines the general form in which our consciousness may develop, irrespective of the extent to which the specific form of that consciousness may be conditioned by environmental factors"

This highlights an important point I want to make about the nature of the mind and objective reality. Like #1 says above, we come limited and predisposed to think and talk about reality through "conceptual schemes and the limits of our language" which is limited by the function and capacity of our evolutionary hand-me-down the cerebral cortex. I only admit that our understanding of the outside world is hampered by these limitations and therefore the discussion must then be directed towards the question of, as with #2, "how much of the apparent intelligibility of the world is a contribution of the mind and how much the world itself contributes to that seeming intelligibility".

So what you are trying to debate is this: When we look at an object in nature, is our knowledge about that object the object inside the mind or the object outside the mind. You say the dichotomy between inside and outside is an illusion and therefore we are only ever thinking of objects "inside the mind". Many problems arise with this line of thinking. Joseph Margolis summarizes the skeptics (your) position...

"So that if, in coming to know the independent world we must always rely on “ideas” in the mind, which cannot in principle claim direct access to the world said to be known, we cannot confirm that those ideas ever correspond to the way the world actually is. This is the insuperable formula of modern skepticism."

"These two themes—(a) the principled disjunction between the resources of knowledge and the “corresponding” properties of the independent world and (b) the restriction of our cognitive resources to an entirely interior “representational” function (a tertium)—are the chief sources of an intolerable skepticism that runs through much of modern philosophy"

But there is a solution to our modern infatuation with skepticism...

"The resolution of modern skepticism requires two distinct steps. Speaking loosely, we may say the first was taken by Kant and the second by Hegel. Kant argues (in the Critique of Pure Reason) that the cognizable structure of the objective world is itself constituted—originally structured—in accord with the prior constituting powers of experience, the so-called pure intuitions of time and space, and the categories of the understanding: in effect, the intelligible (all the intelligible) structures of reality that the mind is capable of comprehending."

This harkens back to the first quote about being "born with a characteristic anatomical structure".

"It was, however, Hegel’s supreme contribution to have grasped the fact that skepticism could never be put to rest without taking a step beyond the puzzles of representationality and correspondence (call that symbiosis)."

"...there remains one unshakable discovery: namely, that the accumulating history of what counts
as knowledge (and our cognizing competence) is the essential condition of the continuing evolution of knowledge itself (and of our cognizing competence); furthermore, that same process must be understood as gathering up the aggregated experience of individual human subjects as well as the collective ethos of the historical society within whose terms such individuals function in the apt (but limited) way they do. All that is part and parcel of the “experience” imputed to Hegel’s invented subject, Geist."

"...the import of representationalism (the first of the two skeptical puzzles mentioned) cannot be decisively resolved except by resolving the second (correspondentism: the puzzle of the relationship between appearance and reality)."

"...the language of Geist brings together (a) the subjective side of the run of pre-Kantian/Kantian thought, (b) the objective side of what is “other” than that,the “world,” which all hands wish to preserve, and (c) the union of (a) and (b) as internal to a putatively inclusive being (“Absolute Geist”) which is the logical “space,” so to say, in which the historical unfolding of human knowledge obtains, cast (metaphorically) as the creative process of Geist’s“self”-knowledge... the improvement over Kant stands: the relocation of epistemic legitimation in the collective processes of historical life. "

"The truth is, there is no way to prioritize metaphysics over epistemology or epistemology over metaphysics. Whatever we say is true of reality rests on whatever we suppose we can validly claim, and whatever we claim (in terms of our subjective or cognitional powers) we suppose holds true in virtue of the way the world is." - Joseph Margolis

How is your junior/senior GPA? If it's fairly high, above a 3.4 or 3.5, that will show improvement over the years. Research experience, good recommendations, and good scores on the GRE will top it off, giving you a shot.

I'd highly recommend checking out Insider's Guide to Graduate Programs in Clinical and Counseling Psychology: 2016/2017 Edition by Norcross and Sayette. It details everything you need to prepare your application, breaks down schools by research interests, plus lists all doctorate programs in clinical & counseling psych, gives their average acceptance GPA, GRE scores, requirements, etc. It's a lifesaver.

Cinnamon Toast Crunch is good, but COCOA PEBBLES ARE THE BEST!

This doodle/drawing book looks like a LOT of fun, and would give me some needed pointers on how to improve my cartoons. It says it's unavailable, but it says it's available from other sellers.

ORRR


THIS BOOK which I've been wanting for a while now. I WANT TO WRECK IT!! :D :D

The questions you are asking are related to philosphy of mind. Two good, recent, and not too dense books on the topic are http://www.amazon.com/Mind-Brief-Introduction-Fundamentals-Philosophy/dp/0195157346/ and
http://www.amazon.com/Body-Shapes-Mind-Shaun-Gallagher/dp/0199204160/

To understand how consciousness works you probably need to start with the brain. You can look at it from afar and you'll see a mess of grey tissue and up close you'll see a bunch tiny cells and electrical and chemical signals. You won't find any consciousnesses. So you pay more attention and see that the tiny cells (neurons) are constantly interacting with each other and with different parts of the body like eyes and limbs. These interactions start small and gradually build up. Making a big leap, you see that human biology has organized these interactions to perform higher order tasks like using visual information (a ball rushing through the air towards you) to direct limb movement (reaching out your hands to catch it.) But these types of actions aren't necessarily the result of conscious states, they could just be reflex actions.

Making the next step is difficult. You know that you have consciouness and that you have higher order brain activities, but dreams for example seem to be higher order brain activities that occur when you're unconscious. So what makes higher order brain activities into conscious states? Philosophy and cognitive science have a great deal to say here and there's not a definitive answer, but I think Gallagher (in ch. 8 from the second book above) has a pretty good model (building off of Husserl's phenomenology of time-consciousness.)

According to Gallagher's model your ongoing experience of the world breaks down into three time-based phases. You have the sense of the now, of what is happening at this very moment (primal impression.) You feel itchy or see blue or smell cinammon. You also have a working memory (retention) of the recent past. You weren't just feeling itchy or seeing blue or smelling cinammon. And you also are able to anticipate what is just about to happen (protention.) You aniticpate scratching the itch or being crushed by a tidal wave or eating dessert. Your being conscious is the result of your brain performing these phases in unison. Your stream of consciousness is the ongoing temporal connection. When you're unconscious you don't have full access to all three phases, when you're dreaming you don't really utilize retention or protention. There is a lot more to the model and its implications, but that's a very general picture.

Other organisms probably (in most cases certainly) don't have the sophisticated interactions that the human brain does which create consciousness. There are also complications with other aspects of mind stuff (esp. intentionality) would keep a computer from being conscious as we generally understand even if it was programmed with retention, protention, and now-ness (and getting proper anticipation/protention into a computer is a big challenge on its own.) I don't think we know enough to say when evolution produced consciousness. And while consciousness is not reducible to individual cells and electrochemical impulses it is a result of our biology, so when human babies get made and develop normally they end up gaining consciousness

>Which of course is from 1996 (23 years old),

Indeed, but it's still the gold standard and new discussions on the topic reference it as the conclusions still hold true today.

>and talks about direct evidence, not evidence in general. Such desired direct evidence was published first in 2013, and has since been updated a number of times as new GWASs come out. The results don't really change much, though there are issues with this approach. Most recent publication is https://www.mdpi.com/2624-8611/1/1/5. A slightly less direct approach is to use admixture analysis. 20th century studies of this are mostly supportive of genetic causation (Shuey reviewed these in 1966), and the only published modern study is https://www.mdpi.com/2624-8611/1/1/1. There are a few more of these in review, and more powerful methods (local admixture, GWASs on sibling pairs) exist and studies using these are under way.
>
>So plenty of progress since 1996 and its basically all pointing in the same way.

Those "studies" you link to are essays published in the pseudojournal Psych which is known for just pushing racist nonsense and having practically no quality control.

Specifically, the author you link has posted numbers articles in the "journal" demonstrating the truth of psychic powers.

So I agree that there is new and exciting evidence on the topic of race and IQ, as long as we qualify it by saying that the evidence is of the same quality as the evidence for telekinesis.

To add to your second point, I'd check out The Insider's Guide to Graduate Programs in Clinical and Counseling Psychology as a more comprehensive guide to available programs. When I talk to prospective graduate students about choosing a clinical psych doctoral program, I tell them to look at

1. Cohort size - the smaller the better. Most PhD programs will have 5-7 students, while I've seen PsyD programs vary from 10-100+.
   
   
2. APA internship match rates - as close to 100% as possible. Due to the proliferation of for-profit schools with large cohort sizes, there are currently more students applying for internship than there are APA accredited internship spots in the U.S. Internship is important for licensure and some positions (e.g. federal) will not hire you without completing an APA accredited internship. Also quality of training at a non-accredited site can vary extremely.
   
   
3. EPPP pass rate - closer to 100% the better. EPPP is the national licensure test for psychologists. While it is difficult since it covers a wide variety of domains in psychology, including I/O psych which isn't covered in most clinical programs, good doctoral programs will have prepared their students well enough that their collective pass rates should be very high.
   
   
4. When you begin getting face-to-face hours with clients. In order to be competitive for many internship sites, you need to accrue a certain amount of intervention and assessment hours. Some programs backload the clinical portion of their training into the last 2 years, which is not preferable. Good programs will start you seeing clients in some form pretty early on (1-2 years in).
   
   
5. Stipend/Scholarship/Financial aid opportunities - PhD programs are typically funded, but you must publish or perish as recompense. For those not research inclined, that can be quite intimidating. Most PsyD programs do not fund tuition, although there are a fair amount that offer some form of scholarship. I've even seen a PsyD program (University of Denver) offer a full ride to someone. Any kind of financial assistance you can get for a PsyD program is great, since PsyD programs will typically run at least 20k per year.

I know this is probably random, but you look like you might be interested in this book if you haven't already read it: https://www.amazon.com/Divided-Self-Existential-Madness-Classics-ebook/dp/B00341852W/ . It changed my outlook on Schizophrenia and I completeley agree with your statement about eccentricity. It's very interesting reading from an existential point of view about case studies of schizophrenics from a therapist who tried different approach and has seen very interesting common problems in families of the patients.

Given that all of our neuroscience hasn't shed the slightest glimpse of a glimmer of an idea how we have subjective experience, I wouldn't be quite so celebratory.

Typically posts claiming this are made by people who have only a Popular Science level of knowledge of the subject, but don't actually know that the best we have are what are called NCCs (neural correlates of consciousness), not consciousness itself. In other words, we know that a certain bundle of c fibers fire when people experience pain, but we do not ever see pain, or love, or thoughts, under a microscope. We just see neurons firing.

John Searle has written several excellent books on the subject, of which this is probably the most accessible.

Wow this is a tough call!

1. Have you considered going the psychiatric route? Med school would probably offer a better ROI than a psyd (though idk if research experience is a must).
   
   
2. I think it’s worth applying to a few PhD programs. No lie without research experience it may be a bit of a long shot, but you could pick a few from the Norcross book that place a fairly equal weight on clinical and research experience. If your background includes a lot of statistics/lab work you may be able to leverage those experiences in your applications.
   Book- https://www.amazon.com/Insiders-Graduate-Programs-Counseling-Psychology/dp/1462525725/ref=nodl_
   
   
   
3. Out of curiosity, if you are able to prescribe medication with your NP, how would that translate to you post doctorate? Would you be able to prescribe medications legally alongside of therapy? I genuinely have no clue about this but if you could, that may increase your salary range and make the ROI of a psyd program more worthwhile (this is total conjecture though).

I'll pass along wokeupabug's typical recommendations:

>A good broad introduction is Lowe's An Introduction to the Philosophy of Mind (for a broader, philosophy and cognition sort of approach). For an introduction more focused on the mind-body problem, you have lots of options; Kim's Philosophy of Mind and Heil's Philosophy of Mind... are good choices. For a history anthology approach, the Chalmers' Philosophy of Mind... is a good choice; a little more accessible would be Morton's Historical Introduction to the Philosophy of Mind.

And the recommendation from the FAQ page:

>For philosophy of mind, Searle's Mind: A Brief Introduction.

I don't really know what you mean by a 'consideration of the future'. Do you mean issues that could crop up in the future germane to phil. mind (A.I., cog. enhancement, etc.)? If so, that's a tough one! Likely just the Cambridge Handbook. The introduciton is avail here if you'd like a preview. And this book on Machine Ethics is recommended on the PhilPapers bibliography.

​

No problem!

1. It's been a while, but I think this book helps to figure out the research requirements of the programs. In a general sense counseling programs seem to be more focused on practice, whereas clinical programs are more research/academia focused. Ultimately, you wont be able to completely know until you interview and talk to many current students/faculty. No matter where you go, your last year or two will be primarily focused on research.
   
   
2. I was the same way. I didn't look super hot on paper because I wasn't a superior student in undergrad. I'm in the midwest. No, where you go to school has little to do with where you end up, especially in smaller college towns where your city will most likely already be saturated with psychologists. California is a bit of a different story. Unless you go to school in CA, you'll probably need to take a few extra courses (psych of sexuality) to transfer your license. Our past faculty had to do that at age 50 to make the move to CA. Remember that you will most likely do your internship in another state, then look for a job in another state. Your nearly two years of clinical post-doc hours will give you plenty of time to fulfill state requirements.
   
   You can PM me if you would like more...

Your plan sounds reasonable. A couple of years experience teaching would be valuable and look good on an application. I have heard that this is a good book on the topic:

http://www.amazon.com/Insiders-Graduate-Programs-Counseling-Psychology/dp/1462518133

Good luck!

The only thing I would recommend is current textbooks. Books aimed at layman people are easier to digest but aren't exactly accurate.

Oxford Textbook of Psychopathology is pretty good. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition lists out exactly what criteria is to be considered, and specifies categories.

There are many.

• Some detail the use of Stoicism in difficult situations. The best known is probably Stockdale's essay Courage Under Fire: Testing Epictetus’s Doctrines in a Laboratory of Human Behavior (PDF). Stockdale was a POW in Vietnam, and his reading of Epictetus proved helpful to his psyche. Another book that explores the connection between Stoicism and the military is Sheridan's Stoic Warriors. Again with the military theme, I'm a fan of the Stoic-adjacent Jocko Podcast, so I'll be ordering Discipline Equals Freedom: Field Manual, which is not yet available. You might listen to a few episodes of the podcast or watch a few YouTube clips to check for yourself. There's also a subreddit, /r/JockoPodcast.
  
  
• Books about CBT and REBT are Stoic-adjacent. I've read A Guide to Rational Living and Cognitive Therapy: Basics and Beyond, but there are of course many others. I found the latter to be especially interesting, as it was intended for therapists, not patients. The Road Less Traveled is also Stoic-ish, especially the first half, but used different terminology.
  
  
• Becker's A New Stoicism is in a class all its own. Here's an interview with the author.
  
  Edited to add one more: Plutarch's Life of Cato the Younger

I really recommend a Wreck This Journal - I think her age is perfect for it. It can help channel creativity and explore both good and bad emotions. Here is a video of what a completed Wreck This Journal looks like for one person.

There is a great book on Adult ADHD that has practical suggestions and great insights: "Could this be Adult ADHD" by Jan Willer. Have recommended the book to many colleagues.

https://www.amazon.com/Could-Adult-ADHD-Clinicians-Recognition/dp/0190256311

Which of course is from 1996 (23 years old), and talks about direct evidence, not evidence in general. Such desired direct evidence was published first in 2013, and has since been updated a number of times as new GWASs come out. The results don't really change much, though there are issues with this approach. Most recent publication is https://www.mdpi.com/2624-8611/1/1/5. A slightly less direct approach is to use admixture analysis. 20th century studies of this are mostly supportive of genetic causation (Shuey reviewed these in 1966), and the only published modern study is https://www.mdpi.com/2624-8611/1/1/1. There are a few more of these in review, and more powerful methods (local admixture, GWASs on sibling pairs) exist and studies using these are under way.

So plenty of progress since 1996 and its basically all pointing in the same way.

If you're primarily interested in doing psychotherapy, there's also a broad variety of options for more professional degrees, from masters programs in social work and clinical psychology to PsyD (doctorate in psychology) programs that are "scientific practitioner" programs. Some Ph.D. programs are also much more focused on clinical work than others. Get yourself a book on the process! This one helps for clinical and counseling programs in the US (and Canada, I believe?); this book discusses the application process.

I'd also talk to professors and get insight from them, rather than strangers on the internet.

A Ph.D. is indeed often (although not always) a research degree, but Ph.D.s are trained as clinicians (and generally don't pay tuition for graduate school). I am a clinical Ph.D., and I work with patients.

An MSW or any of the other paths to clinical licensure are also clinical degrees.

I would encourage you to look at all of the possibilities before you commit to a specific path. See if your library has this book.

In regards to your second question -- I strongly suggest you pick up a copy of Insider's Guide to Graduate Programs in Clinical and Counseling Psychology. It will be an amazing tool and reference point when trying to decide on (or even search for) programs in the field.

https://www.amazon.com/Insiders-Graduate-Programs-Counseling-Psychology/dp/1462518133

Insider's Guide to Graduate Programs in Clinical and Counseling Psychology

Was recommended by a Prof and it details everything you need to know to get started on graduate school stuff. It's seriously worth the investment, it will answer so many questions. Worth nothing this is primarily focused on the States with some minor focus on Canada. If you don't plan on studying in North America, the general info will still be helpful but a lot of it is about the individual programs.

They look at the whole package. Obviously more competitive programs will be... more competitive. So if your gpa is lacking, you will want to make up for it with practical experience, research participation etc.

There was a book that really helped me out quite a bit when I was applying. I would really suggest getting it as it totally walks you through step by step. https://www.amazon.com/Insiders-Graduate-Programs-Counseling-Psychology/dp/1462525725/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_14_t_0/139-2244996-0386028?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=3020BXQAS2WEY8T4GPNC

This isn't a new phenomenon. For anyone interested in learning more about the issue (Instead of just bitching about it on Reddit), I'd recommend Constructing the Political Spectacle by Murray Edelman. He really gets to the meat of the issue without dissolving into partisan hackery.

There are 2 resources I'd like to refer to you which helped me a lot in my own process.

The Insiders Guide to Programs in Clinical Psych

This PDF

If you value your training, education, and bank account, please, please do not go to any Alliant or Argosy program, or really any freestanding PsyD program if possible. The amount of debt you will incur is absolutely not worth the garbage training you will receive. In academic circles, at least, I have never met a psychologist, licensed or otherwise, who had any respect for these programs or their training models. The general consensus among everyone I have talked to is that these programs are essentially traps for people who don't have the academic credentials to obtain admission to a Ph.D program, but who really want to do therapy now instead of take a year to bolster their CV. The APA accredited internship match rates at Alliant are consistently terrible. San Diego had a disappointing 24% match rate last cycle, up from the previous year's 13%. Meanwhile, the Los Angeles location has APA accredited match rates between 6% and 0% and that's with 65 to 176 students applying per year.

If you want a good resource for researching PhD programs, I highly recommend the latest editions of Insider's Guide to Graduate Study in Clinical and Counseling Psychology and Graduate Study in Psychology. These books were both invaluable when I was applying, and I think the latter contains information on the therapeutic orientation of faculty members at most of the programs included (it's been a few years since I applied and I have blocked most of that process from my memory).

You're looking at the Clinical Psych program for UNC Chapel Hill -- I was pulling that information for the Counseling Clinical Psych program in Charlotte. Totally different program. Probably should've clarified.

I'm getting my information for those schools directly from this guide.

This book has a list of questions: https://www.amazon.com/Insiders-Graduate-Programs-Counseling-Psychology/dp/1462525725/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1487821182&sr=1-1&keywords=insider%27s+guide+to+clinical+and+counseling+psychology

A few suggested additions:

• Philosophy of technology: Scharff's anthology and/or Kaplan's anthology
  
  
• Philosophy of mind: Maybe Searle's Mind: A Brief Introduction, and the Chalmers anthology

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Wreck-This-Journal-Create-Destroy/dp/1846144450

Wow. What a blatant rip-off!! They are clearly copying the Wreck this Journal series. :-/

Wreck This Journal
http://amzn.com/1846144450