“Multiple relationships that would not reasonably be expected to cause impairment or risk exploitation or harm are not unethical.” The standard also includes a statement that multiple relationships per se are not unethical. I propose we first screen for reasonable psychologists before a determination is made. This is where my new assessment would come in handy. This test requires the opinions of what most reasonable psychologists would expect to occur from the arrangement.
Copy of the mmpi test professional#
“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.” It even provides a test to determine if there is a problem: The standard provides a definition of “Multiple Relationships” since this term is so confusing that some psychologists fear having more than one friend. On the other hand, the standard, 3.05 “Multiple Relationships” requires a tolerance for ambiguity and ethical reasoning. It is too unambiguous to have much projective value except in determining acute psychotic states. For example, 10.05 “Sexual Intimacies with Current Therapy Clients/Patients” is only a sentence long, with a clear “do not” in it. Next in the development of my projective test, I had to determine the projective value of each ethical standard. They are characterized by understanding the spirit and intent of ethical behavior: “shit happens- so try to keep others from stepping in it.” The highest level is the Wise Sphincter Thinker. The Normal-Befuddlement level has an appreciation that there is more to it than meets the eye. They may follow the letter of every standard to the point of absurdity, while totally missing the bowl. The clean but impractical sphincter characterizes the Obsessive-Compulsive sphincter level. They end up getting into trouble since they secretly wish to be spanked by the Ethic Committee. The Masochistic sphincter level is characterized by sphincter receptivity.
They feel above the societal demands for toilet training and ethics codes. The Narcisstic sphincter level is characterized by sphincter expulsion on others.
Copy of the mmpi test code#
These are the Torquemadas who rigidly and cynically interpret the ethics code to persecute others.
A very tight sphincter characterizes the Paranoid/Cynical sphincter level. The Schizoid/ Clueless sphincter level is characterized by an inability to even recognize ethical issues and to distinguish one’s own sphincter from a hole in the ground. These are the Gordon’s Levels of Ethical Reasoning. I will now move beyond my operational definition to the actual imagined constructs. This also proves that empirical validation works best in anal situations. I challenge anyone to measure “ego strength” physiologically, but anal strength can be easily empirically validated by sphincter’s ability to snap a pencil. I based my ethical levels of reasoning on what I call “anal strength”. This gives the impression that I am smarter than Sigmund Freud, which makes me feel important. I have rejected the concept of “Superego”.
In the noble tradition of psychology, I stole key concepts from others and relabeled them. That insight has inspired me to develop a projective test of ethical reasoning.Ī good test should be anchored to a good theory. Similarly, I have noticed how much I can tell about a psychologist’s personality by how the psychologist interprets APA’s Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct. Research has found that the very same people who said “True” to this item also get panic attacks when they present. For example, the MMPI-2 question, “I have often met people who were supposed to be experts who were no better than I” is a frequent response of workshop participants. MMPI-2 statements have a projective aspect to them. How is that possible? Well we all know that the Rorschach inkblots have great projective value, but so can written statements. I am working on using the APA Ethics Code as a projective test.
0 kommentar(er)
