Gaming World Forums
General Category => General Talk => Topic started by: Frisky SKeleton on September 21, 2010, 12:53:25 am
-
this topic might be silly since it's essentially about ethics and it's on the internet, BUT, how do you feel about reading people?
i study psychology, and when i mention this the standard response is "hope you're not reading my mind" or something similar. i tend to be pensive about sharing this, people stop talking to you at parties etc. just in case. anyway a bus driver sparked up some awkward small talk with me, and when i said i did psychology the conversation went like this:
"oh, you need psychology in this world, to be able to read people"
"oh we don't actually read people like that, what little i can do i deliberately don't use"
"why not?"
"i think it sets up a power difference and it's kinda abusive"
"everyone else is trying to read everyone else anyway, you'd just be better at it. there'd only be a power difference because you're better then them, but by not using it you're still saying you're better than them, you just have no practical basis for it"
"you have given me a lot to think about"
"ONWARD LIGHT WARRIOR"
or something to that extent. currently i deliberately avoid psychoanalysing people, or analysing people at all. how do you guys feel about analysing other people? ethically? would you mind if your friend was analysing you?
-
i psychoanalyze everyone at first glance
-
you can psychoanalyze people you barely know guess t wll just make you annoyng
lke back n hghschool when had lyme dsease and my bran was pretty much fallng apart just moltng n chunks there was a grl and we were both bg on ANALYSNG people and after we had fun wth that for a whle she decded was the worst person n the world and made a bg post about how awful was on gaaonlne. bascally t's the worst don't even thn about ths stuff outsde the confessonal or w/e t was you wanted to do
-
qut usng the letter because t s the sexst letter, a manfestaton of the contnued domnance of the male and af dre al pecker.
-
i don't mean JUDGING, i mean like sitting down and figuring out what makes them tick/what they want (and inevitably) using that information for good (fantastic gifts!) or evil?
-
im always trying to analyze people because i have autism(self diagnosed) i cant trust anyone i am better than them
-
t wll probably stll make you annoyng or uncomfortable to be around. people can tell when you peer nto ther souls. or maybe you wll become very talented at concealng your abltes and be able to lve among the people, secretly betterng the lves of all who lve on wstera lane
-
t wll probably stll make you annoyng or uncomfortable to be around. people can tell when you peer nto ther souls. or maybe you wll become very talented at concealng your abltes and be able to lve among the people, secretly betterng the lves of all who lve on wstera lane
did i mention im a sociopath(self diagnosed) so yeah im really good at concealing it
-
ugh what are you guys talking about? this topic boils down to IF YOU COULD READ MINDS, WOULD YOU? WHAT WOULD YOU DO WITH THE INFORMATION? not that i can read minds, but that's what the topic boils down to.
also earl chip i read your story again and it makes less sense. "don't analyse people, the girl you do it with could post something hideous on gaiionline"
-
i do this a lot unintentionally and im working on it because like you said it makes you hard to be around.
also i am alone like 75% because of my work schedule so analyzing people and things they say, particularly in text, leads down this horrible road of paranoia and anxiety and it seriously not a good thing.
i am def. working on this; when i do it i admit i do feel superior in probably an unjustified way because i am no genius of any kind, but people just really don't fucking like being picked apart. i think i am good at it because i think quickly but it is also imperfect and i tend to draw conclusions too quickly and i often miss things.
tbh i think it kind of kills the fun of being part of a community (maybe i think this because i am alone so often). i very much like learning about people through conversation and stuff.
-
i tend to not have any prejudices or attempt to read/shape an opinion about people past what they share with me. Mostly because I'm a self-conscious and anxious wreck myself about what people think of me. A lot of my good friends are radically different from what one would assume just looking at them/having smalltalk so even if I did try to do something like that my frame of reference is so skewed that I'd more than likely make outrageously incorrect assumptions about people.
-
ugh what are you guys talking about? this topic boils down to IF YOU COULD READ MINDS, WOULD YOU? WHAT WOULD YOU DO WITH THE INFORMATION? not that i can read minds, but that's what the topic boils down to.
also earl chip i read your story again and it makes less sense. "don't analyse people, the girl you do it with could post something hideous on gaiionline"
thnk you mssed a couple 's. and t's not about lterally postng t onlne or even tellng other people about your nonprofessonal garbage analyss, t's about the dangers of analyzng people and thnkng you understand what you fnd or that what you fnd represents any truth, and the unconscous prejudces you mght form from these analysss. attemptng psychoanalyss and therapy n a causal settng s a dangerous game and you hold none of the cards.
-
plus almost everyone is kinda awkward when you first meet them so who knows they may be a completely different person than what they may have said/presented. We've all got our little "masks" or fronts that we put on as a sort of neurotic social defense mechanism, be it at work or with acquaintances. Who knows, that guy you work with who seems to only talk about baseball could also be crazy about spinning pottery and thinks its too "gay" to talk about or he's driven in life purely on spiteful revenge feelings for his stepdad that called him a failure every weeknight or whatever.
-
f a dog could read a dog's mnd why wouldn't you put a dog n law enforcement?
-
f a dog could read a dog's mnd why wouldn't you put a dog n law enforcement?
[/quote​ i miss amark
-
i feel like psychology is such a broad unproven field of science that to suggest that you can read people based on it is kind of naive. everyone"reads people" and analyzes them, or at least most do, if they aren't a buddhist monk or some shit. and it is just judging people. you are judging their behavior based on what you consider the norm. whether you justify that norm by saying "well psychology proves that this is the norm" or by saying "religion proves that this is the norm" isnt as of as much significance as one might make it out to be seeing as psychology is hugely unproven. you could make the argument that relgion is hugely proven because billions of people follow religions and that psychology is largely unproven because almost no one (in the scope of the world population) studies it. what would psychology have to say about that? psychology is so broad and lacks scientific dept. i think the beauty behind any competent therapist, isnt a sound scientific understanding, but rather just compassion and sympathy and the ability to see from anothers point of view. i think what im saying here is what everyone else is saying, but without blatant mocking: an understanding of psychology as it is now lacks the depths to be able to read someone over a brief time unless that person has an extremely obvious mental disorder (like schizophrenia).
-
well thank you von woofen for not mocking and instead patronising. ps. you've said both that everyone analyses and that psychology is unproven and no-one uses it. you've also said a whole bunch of weird stuff i don't want to address because it's not relevant.
so far everyone's posts seem to hinge on it not working ("it") and no-one has talked about the ethics of if you could, which isn't so far fetched a hypothetical. also i'm not talking about diagnosis or therapeutic intervention with strangers, i'm talking more about consciously trying to figure out what drives people. sitting down and thinking about patterns in peoples behaviour etc. to predict and control future behaviour. how do people feel about this? do you do it? if you could, would you?
-
well thank you von woofen for not mocking and instead patronising. ps. you've said both that everyone analyses and that psychology is unproven and no-one uses it. you've also said a whole bunch of weird stuff i don't want to address because it's not relevant.
so far everyone's posts seem to hinge on it not working ("it") and no-one has talked about the ethics of if you could, which isn't so far fetched a hypothetical. also i'm not talking about diagnosis or therapeutic intervention with strangers, i'm talking more about consciously trying to figure out what drives people. sitting down and thinking about patterns in peoples behaviour etc. to predict and control future behaviour. how do people feel about this? do you do it? if you could, would you?
I guess, if I were so knowledgeable that I was actually able to accurately do it without second guessing my assumptions, I probably would. I think the bigger issue is what I would decide to do with said analysis. Predicting is fine as long as it just stays in your head(or in my case, dinner conversations with my wife) but attempting to control future behavior seems to be a little out of bounds IMO. There's some exceptions I guess, like if I know someone who has dealt with addiction and I notice them engaging in behaviors that could lead to relapse or another addiction then I might share my opinions and suggestions in a friendly/caring manner but 'controlling'(as in going out of my way unsolicited to interfere with their choices) is a little too intrusive to me.
-
I do it all the time and I don't think it's ethically a bad thing. I do it simply because it makes it easier to understand people and what/why they do things. Also because my girlfriend is studying psychology and I find what she tells me interesting.
-
I have nothing to say in this topic except that earlchip now looks like he's constantly drunkposting because he has no i's and it's fantastic.
-
no i's you say ?? how does he see what he's typing ??
-
no i's you say ?? how does he see what he's typing ??
jsadlfjslkfj post of the year 2010
-
I do it all the time and I don't think it's ethically a bad thing. I do it simply because it makes it easier to understand people and what/why they do things. Also because my girlfriend is studying psychology and I find what she tells me interesting.
you are headng down the path of gaaonlne
-
I work in retail and I try to read every person as well as I can for a few reasons:
a) I have to determine how crazy they are
b) I have to determine what kind of crazy they are
are the biggest, but there are others. Trying to decide how much they are willing to spend is pretty low on that list (surprisingly, for a salesman) because I'd rather seem like a friendly helpful person than be good at selling things to people. Mostly I just have to try to determine as quickly as possible if they are going to have a batshit crazy response to something. Also, riding a busy transit system every day means I have to try and read people based on visual cues so that I can avoid people stabbing me and whatever. It's a serious concern of mine.
If I could read minds yes, I would, but only the minds of strangers who I have no interest in interacting with for more than a few minutes. Anything past that and I'd rather genuinely get to know someone via conversation OR WHATEVER.
-
The question of whether it's right to manipulate people with your interpersonal skills is dependent on whether you believe in free choice. If you are a determinist, then the extent to which you affect others isn't a moral question, but a pragmatic one (the end result of which is either geared to you or geared to your concept of utilitarian "good"). It's a little harder to answer if you believe in free choice, because then you have to reconcile yourself with:
A.) Whether your actions can actually impel someone to change
B.) Whether it is right to steer people's actions in a certain direction, even if you allow that the direction they choose is ultimately their own choice
C.) How you believe that direction is the 'right' one.
I'm a determinist, personally.
-
I work in retail and I try to read every person as well as I can for a few reasons:
a) I have to determine how crazy they are
b) I have to determine what kind of crazy they are
are the biggest, but there are others. Trying to decide how much they are willing to spend is pretty low on that list (surprisingly, for a salesman) because I'd rather seem like a friendly helpful person than be good at selling things to people. Mostly I just have to try to determine as quickly as possible if they are going to have a batshit crazy response to something. Also, riding a busy transit system every day means I have to try and read people based on visual cues so that I can avoid people stabbing me and whatever. It's a serious concern of mine.
If I could read minds yes, I would, but only the minds of strangers who I have no interest in interacting with for more than a few minutes. Anything past that and I'd rather genuinely get to know someone via conversation OR WHATEVER.
lol is being stabbed on the bus really a "serious concern" for you?
i thought i was paranoid... :welp:
-
The question of whether it's right to manipulate people with your interpersonal skills is dependent on whether you believe in free choice. If you are a determinist, then the extent to which you affect others isn't a moral question, but a pragmatic one (the end result of which is either geared to you or geared to your concept of utilitarian "good"). It's a little harder to answer if you believe in free choice, because then you have to reconcile yourself with:
A.) Whether your actions can actually impel someone to change
B.) Whether it is right to steer people's actions in a certain direction, even if you allow that the direction they choose is ultimately their own choice
C.) How you believe that direction is the 'right' one.
I'm a determinist, personally.
...if you were a hard determinist/materialist, ethics would be a completely moot issue because everything that happens is the only thing that could have happened. Therefore your own manipulation of said other was already a predetermined phenomenon set in motion by pre-existing material conditions.
-
The question of whether it's right to manipulate people with your interpersonal skills is dependent on whether you believe in free choice. If you are a determinist, then the extent to which you affect others isn't a moral question, but a pragmatic one (the end result of which is either geared to you or geared to your concept of utilitarian "good"). It's a little harder to answer if you believe in free choice, because then you have to reconcile yourself with:
A.) Whether your actions can actually impel someone to change
B.) Whether it is right to steer people's actions in a certain direction, even if you allow that the direction they choose is ultimately their own choice
C.) How you believe that direction is the 'right' one.
I'm a determinist, personally.
it's not magic, the other person has a say. if you were really hungry, and someone offered you a sandwich at their house and you went to their house, has your free will been challenged? i guess it's kinda similar to being able to tell when people are hungry and what they want to eat.
-
...if you were a hard determinist/materialist, ethics would be a completely moot issue because everything that happens is the only thing that could have happened. Therefore your own manipulation of said other was already a predetermined phenomenon set in motion by pre-existing material conditions.
You're right here -- this is precisely what I mean when I say the manipulation of others isn't a moral question to the determinist. At which point, the concept of manipulation can be explained by personal motives (pragmatism/utilitarianism).
it's not magic, the other person has a say. if you were really hungry, and someone offered you a sandwich at their house and you went to their house, has your free will been challenged? i guess it's kinda similar to being able to tell when people are hungry and what they want to eat.
You're also right. Free will can't be challenged in retrospect, because it is logically possible for you to have made the choice to stop by your friend's place and have a sammy, as opposed to being impelled to go because you are hungry, you have plenty of gas, and his house has nice lighting, etc.. Any belief in anything is ultimately a matter of faith -- whether it comes to empiricism or determinism or even pragmatism. I readily admit that. At any rate, it's clear that you believe in free will. Ergo, the principle question is whether it is moral to manipulate or influence others. Well, since you believe in free will, it's not like you can ROB someone of free will (because that is a determinist viewpoint). Ergo, it should not be logically possible for you to manipulate anyone anyway. It is possible for you to influence them, but the decision they make after an influence is their own to make.
-
lol is being stabbed on the bus really a "serious concern" for you?
i thought i was paranoid... :welp:
Haha, naw, the subway.
I'm not really worried about getting stabbed (that was part wasn't serious) but I am constantly watching for trouble brewing, which it does frequently enough that the energy I spend on it (mild vigilance) is justified. I am less worried about being jumped than I am about somebody near me being harassed. I like to see that shit coming so I can decide if I'll intervene or not. There are also lots of insane people who want to yell at you, so I like to be aware of who they are and avoid them as needed.
when you're riding the rails every day you see some things, man....
-
I try to read others minds and I do it pretty .... Well.... I normally don't guess like that. what I do is look at there action and habits they do gives them away and you can normally get Idea what type life style and what type mind set. But my 2nd boss at wal-mart I read everything he was going to do. Because I had so many Run-ins with him I knew him from the back of my hand.
Then I pushed out to manipulate him to finally solve this shit or get fired (I really didn't care which both solved my problem regardless because I couldn't just quit and expect unemployment to pay me and if I didn't have a car payment I would of quit awhile ago) I knew at least ever month he tries to make something out nothing.
but it's quite a long story so I won't finish it let's just say that tyrant fired me witch I gave it a 90% chance of happening, 9% of nothing getting solved (which was the worst thing that could happen since I was at the point of misery) and about 1% of him listening to me but he never dose so it was a fat chance in hell that would happen.
What he thinks is I did to retaliate. It was something more then he could ever for see. PS found a better job.(I knew there was a better job one time I told my boss he is a horrible manager and he goes how many boss did I have I said there was DC witch I got along with him great for almost year till he left. I also was think there where also 4 or 5 stores I been to fix up the store and I could consider them bosses too in a way but I never said that and he basically scoffed at what I was saying. but I know a another employee that had about 6 or 7 and he said he was the worst he ever seen too so. )
-
you're a hard guy to read, DDay
-
solution: put your controller in the other port
-
you're a hard guy to read, DDay
I think you mean literally on the writing and stance structure but if you knew me in person you would say the same thing.
-
solution: put your controller in the other port
if you know what i mean
-
Most of the "reading" you're talking about involves a lot of error. This is the ethical question of reading people. When you do it, do you realize your own personal bias in your interpretation of their behavior? Projection works both ways. When people say things about others, they often project (some people do it more than others). If you're ever done projective personality testing you'd know what i'm talking about.
Second, do you always look for negative attributes and fail to interpret the behaviors that could be seen as positive assets? People do this too much.
Third, does the person remind you of someone else (do a similar behavior as someone else) yet you interpret their behavior in the same way. People engage in the same behavior for different reasons.
and.. ethics are not the same as morals.
-
you can approach it like you would any other science; come up with a hypothesis and test it, looking for information that both proves and (potentially) disproves your 'interpretation'
also i don't know why you felt the need to distinguish ethics and morality.
-
Haha, naw, the subway.
I'm not really worried about getting stabbed (that was part wasn't serious) but I am constantly watching for trouble brewing, which it does frequently enough that the energy I spend on it (mild vigilance) is justified. I am less worried about being jumped than I am about somebody near me being harassed. I like to see that shit coming so I can decide if I'll intervene or not. There are also lots of insane people who want to yell at you, so I like to be aware of who they are and avoid them as needed.
when you're riding the rails every day you see some things, man....
for real.
-
if you know what i mean
You gotta use your solid snake wisely.
:naughty:
-
you can approach it like you would any other science; come up with a hypothesis and test it, looking for information that both proves and (potentially) disproves your 'interpretation'
can you analyze why my cousn always shts n hs drawers
-
I don't like to read people because mostly they read like a tawdry paperback -.- meh -.-
-
Also, riding a busy transit system every day means I have to try and read people based on visual cues so that I can avoid people stabbing me and whatever. It's a serious concern of mine.
Tell us about your time in Vietnam.
-
Tell us about your time in Vietnam.
ROFLCOPTER GOES SOI SOI SOI SOI SOI SOI SOI
-
you can approach it like you would any other science; come up with a hypothesis and test it, looking for information that both proves and (potentially) disproves your 'interpretation'
also i don't know why you felt the need to distinguish ethics and morality.
well because there were a few that were using the two interchangeably. Something can be moral but not ethical. I thought it was worth mentioning. As for the first part, you can approach it like a science, but if you neither have the competence or training it can be moral yet not ethical. Also, science is objective, yet reading people involves a lot of subjective interpretation. If you're a certified applied behavior analyst, you're trained to explain, control, and predict behavior objectively. If not you're involving a subjective interpretation of a behavior. In that case, you need to be aware of your biases and how to minimize those biases. I doubt you're going around graphing everyone's behavior in a systematic way, but it would be funny if you did. And if you believed in objective behavior analysis, you would not believe in a mind. Read skinner's can psychology be a science of the mind? I think you'd like it.
-
*shoots lazer's from his mind"
-
well because there were a few that were using the two interchangeably. Something can be moral but not ethical. I thought it was worth mentioning. As for the first part, you can approach it like a science, but if you neither have the competence or training it can be moral yet not ethical. Also, science is objective, yet reading people involves a lot of subjective interpretation. If you're a certified applied behavior analyst, you're trained to explain, control, and predict behavior objectively. If not you're involving a subjective interpretation of a behavior. In that case, you need to be aware of your biases and how to minimize those biases. I doubt you're going around graphing everyone's behavior in a systematic way, but it would be funny if you did. And if you believed in objective behavior analysis, you would not believe in a mind. Read skinner's can psychology be a science of the mind? I think you'd like it.
no.
skinner and behaviourism aren't anti-mind, they conclude that it's simply not that useful to incorporate into theory. and of course they're wrong, as the popularity of CBT shows. behaviourism is powerful but tautological without (at least) a layer of subjectivity. how is behaviour reinforced? by reinforcers. what's a reinforcer? something that reinforces a behaviour. also you didn't really address the topic too much; it'd be ok to analyse people if you knew what you were doing, but if you didn't it'd be unethical?
thanks for trying to teach me psychology though.
-
I've thought about reading a book that's all about reading people like a book.
I've already got the book, I just haven't read it yet.
-
I love Skinner, the old coot. I think I'ma read his Walden II this weekend.
Anyway, I have a question about CBT. In CBT, would you say there's a definite brightline where your analysis assumes too much and is too subjective?
EDIT:
I've thought about reading a book that's all about reading people like a book.
I've already got the book, I just haven't read it yet.
I've thought about reading your post about a book that's all about reading people like a book.
I've already read the post about your getting the book and having not read it yet.
-
deliver the joke already frisky you're getting annoying
edit please don't leave.
-
nah i'm frisky skeleton now i've left climbtree (or as i call him, 'climbTROLL') behind. the topic is serious, the jokes are your guys replies (the humour was in you all along!).
anyway here's a much more straight forward analogy, i'm a trained counsellor but i deliberately don't use counselling techniques on friends/family etc. for much the same reason. what are the ethics. deliberately thinking about your actions and their consequences seems kinda gross, playing games with people etc., but phrased like that it sounds silly not to. i'm going through a major crisis regarding these questions!
-
no.
skinner and behaviourism aren't anti-mind, they conclude that it's simply not that useful to incorporate into theory. and of course they're wrong, as the popularity of CBT shows. behaviourism is powerful but tautological without (at least) a layer of subjectivity. how is behaviour reinforced? by reinforcers. what's a reinforcer? something that reinforces a behaviour. also you didn't really address the topic too much; it'd be ok to analyse people if you knew what you were doing, but if you didn't it'd be unethical?
thanks for trying to teach me psychology though.
my interpretation of that: Defensive.
If you're not a professional, then you have no ethical issues to worry about. The ethics police don't knock on the door of undergraduates or at least not that I'm aware of. Since you said you study psychology and were asking a question regarding ethics and psychology, I tried to answer your question. Or do you just ask questions and get defensive when people try to help you with the answer? I was simply trying to help you out, but I'm not so sure you're really looking for the answer.
If you truly are looking for the answer, the following link should be of some use, it is the APA ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. You can also look up the American counseling association if you are looking to become a counselor.
http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/index.aspx
But i think I can help you out as well personally. IF you were a psychologist or not, you wouldn't want to read your friends and family. You could get information about them that you may not want to know and that is private to them. That's less than ideal. If you do, your relationships could potentially suffer. You're not your friend or family's counselor or psychologist.
Here's a couple of standards to get you started that are from the APA website:
9.07 Assessment by Unqualified Persons- Psychologists do not promote the use of psychological assessment techniques by unqualified persons, except when such use is conducted for training purposes with appropriate supervision.
3.06 Conflict of Interest
Psychologists refrain from taking on a professional role when personal, scientific, professional, legal, financial, or other interests or relationships could reasonably be expected to (1) impair their objectivity, competence, or effectiveness in performing their functions as psychologists or (2) expose the person or organization with whom the professional relationship exists to harm or exploitation.
3.08 Exploitative Relationships
Psychologists do not exploit persons over whom they have supervisory, evaluative, or other authority such as clients/patients, students, supervisees, research participants, and employees.
It's hard to "turn it off" when you get out of work. If you're having trouble turning it off, you really need to work on it. You may begin to not like the fact that you see things about people that generally would help you as a psychologist but not as a person. I hope that helped. There's a lot of gray area, there's never a correct answer when it comes to these kinds of questions.
-
i Asked my gf if she had penis envy and she slapped me :fogetgasp:
-
my interpretation of that: Defensive.
it was meant to be aggressive. there's not much time left before i finish my masters thesis (too little time), i'm a trained counsellor and i'm qualified to administer and interpret quite a range of psychometrics. i know about skinner and theories of the mind, what i wanted was more what your most recent post contained, but perhaps with some personal reflection (would you?).
most (and especially the APAs) ethical codes for psychology are based around clinical work, and the exploitation refers more to personal gain (sex, money, or things) rather than exploitation of position (psychiatry). for instance, if you were doing consulting work as an I/O psych in an organisation your friend worked in, putting to use research to make employees feel more satisfied etc., what are the ethics of that?
i thought it was horrible stuff but a lot of people seem to expect everyone to do this to some degree. they only object on the grounds of being a smug dickhole (eg ryan and earlchip)
-
l had some good ponts but maybe they were overlooked because of the lack of 's (t's only on ths laptop whch has a bad keyboard can type them on other computers)
essentally dong ths s the worst and f you're really gonna be a professonal psychologst don't thnk ths should even be a queston for you. who even cares about the ethcs of "s t ok to do ths to them" the objecton should come far before that
-
it was meant to be aggressive. there's not much time left before i finish my masters thesis (too little time), i'm a trained counsellor and i'm qualified to administer and interpret quite a range of psychometrics. i know about skinner and theories of the mind, what i wanted was more what your most recent post contained, but perhaps with some personal reflection (would you?).
most (and especially the APAs) ethical codes for psychology are based around clinical work, and the exploitation refers more to personal gain (sex, money, or things) rather than exploitation of position (psychiatry). for instance, if you were doing consulting work as an I/O psych in an organisation your friend worked in, putting to use research to make employees feel more satisfied etc., what are the ethics of that?
i thought it was horrible stuff but a lot of people seem to expect everyone to do this to some degree. they only object on the grounds of being a smug dickhole (eg ryan and earlchip)
Naturally, the APA ethics apply to the three fields of psychology you can obtain a practice credential (school psych, clin psych, and counseling psych). Nevertheless, APA has several divisions likely including I/O psychs and the ethical standards are up for interpretation. So long as you're not practicing beyond your competence. A counselor consulting as an industrial/organizational psychologist would be practicing outside of their boundary of competence. If you want to do that type of consultation, I would think you'd have to complete a program in industrial/organizational psych. again from the APA website,
2.01 Boundaries of Competence
(a) Psychologists provide services, teach, and conduct research with populations and in areas only within the boundaries of their competence, based on their education, training, supervised experience, consultation, study, or professional experience.
But if you have the training, these would likely apply:
3.05 Multiple Relationships
(a) A multiple relationship occurs when a psychologist is in a professional role with a person and (1) at the same time is in another role with the same person, (2) at the same time is in a relationship with a person closely associated with or related to the person with whom the psychologist has the professional relationship, or (3) promises to enter into another relationship in the future with the person or a person closely associated with or related to the person.
A psychologist refrains from entering into a multiple relationship if the multiple relationship could reasonably be expected to impair the psychologist's objectivity, competence, or effectiveness in performing his or her functions as a psychologist, or otherwise risks exploitation or harm to the person with whom the professional relationship exists.
Multiple relationships that would not reasonably be expected to cause impairment or risk exploitation or harm are not unethical.
(b) If a psychologist finds that, due to unforeseen factors, a potentially harmful multiple relationship has arisen, the psychologist takes reasonable steps to resolve it with due regard for the best interests of the affected person and maximal compliance with the Ethics Code.
So as it says, if it will impair your objectivity, competence, or effectiveness, if it will cause impairment or risk exploitation, and will likely do harm, refrain from doing it. Consultation is an indirect service. It probably wouldn't be necessary to have a professional relationship with that friend. I would also think it depends on other factors as well. If you live in a small town and everyone knows everyone, it may be unavoidable to do that. Above all, do no harm.
-
l had some good ponts but maybe they were overlooked because of the lack of 's (t's only on ths laptop whch has a bad keyboard can type them on other computers)
essentally dong ths s the worst and f you're really gonna be a professonal psychologst don't thnk ths should even be a queston for you. who even cares about the ethcs of "s t ok to do ths to them" the objecton should come far before that
I'm really sorry about stupid post but I couldn't stop myself from pointing the I out. Carry on with conversation!
-
its an L
-
l I l I G'DAMN IT!