Article archive / October 1, 2010
Originally published: . Volume 2, No. 2. Source pages: 2.
I first met George Hearn in 1976 when I became a student member of LPA. I was wandering around the convention and Tom Stigall introduced me to George. This was a grand thing for a student but then George made it even better. He sat a few minutes with me, apparently in no particular hurry. He asked me a few questions. He said a few wise words. And in that brief time, he communicated an acceptance that stuck with me. Perhaps it was CBT or Rogerian or maybe it was George being George. In the middle of a busy conference, his message rang in my head like a crystal bell, “You’re important to us. We’re glad you are here.”
George was a real psychologist. He was a licensed professional, a department head, and classically trained. He was a student of personality and human culture and sought to understand the larger view of time and of history. He fought for his country and loved his family. He stayed in close contact to his higher power and it seems to me that he never forgot that in comparison, he was a lower power.
Nick Cummings gave a talk titled “Getting Away from Professional Psychology’s Sado-Masochistic Marriage to Academia,” at NAPPP’s conference last year. He was highly critical of the scientist-practitioner model (called it scientist-professional), saying that it “… produces mediocre scientists and less than skilled practitioners.” He pointed out that we’re the only (healthcare) profession with this model and recommended a change to be like all the others. (Presumably the others are doing one bang- up job in comparison, a conclusion I seriously doubt.)
For exploring job design I suggest changing terms a little. Instead of “practitioner” let’s use the term “technician,” someone skilled in practical applications. (Let’s drop “professional” altogether because of its circular definition. It is more of a projective test than anything else.)
And let’s also add the word “philosopher” to scientist, since it is philosophy that is the fundamental study of truth and knowledge, the attempt to separate what is real from what our minds can contort into what appears to be real. Science is a subset of philosophy, and this is training in thinking about thinking.
Buckminster Fuller categorized behavior into levels related to productivity and quality of contribution. He said there is doing, thinking about doing, and thinking about thinking. As one goes up the levels, the benefits multiply.
The first two are the technicians. The third, thinking about thinking, is the job of the philosopher and scientist. As psychologists our job is to apply all three in our work, even at the individual level. The quality of service and productivity we offer because we engage all three levels will always surpass the work of even a good technician. Clients deserve this level of quality.
It’s a noble ideal and of course not easily achieved. I over simplify the issue when it is not simple at all. We are always going to be playing catch-up if we’re honest with ourselves. But it is still the right job description for real psychologists.
Like Dr. George Hearn, who for certain, and in all ways, was a real psychologist.
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.