Hi Just a couple of quick comments on this thread.
1. I think the medical model may have been a diversion from the real point, which is the adoption of a scientific model for clinical psychology, not necessarily a medical one. Just as one does not want engineers building bridges, tall buildings, automobiles, airplanes, and the like on the basis of intuition and trial and error (as if they could of course), one does not want professional psychologists who at the very least fail to recognize the need for a much stronger scientific basis for clinical activities. I would appreciate it even if the large majority of clinical psychologists recognized the need for such a model and gave their support to its development, rather than ignoring the lack and even resisting such modest moves as empirically validated treatments. 2. The reason that APA engages in certain science and teaching related activities (e.g., journals, books) is undoubtedly influenced at least to some extent by the money-generating capacity of those activities. It would be interesting to see how much of APA's non-revenue-generating budget goes to science, teaching, and practice. That is probably a fairer reflection of what our dues buy us (I'm still a member) than the distribution of the total APA budget, which would include a hefty amount of non-dues money, I'm assuming. Best wishes Jim ============================================================================ James M. Clark (204) 786-9757 Department of Psychology (204) 774-4134 Fax University of Winnipeg 4L05D Winnipeg, Manitoba R3B 2E9 [EMAIL PROTECTED] CANADA http://www.uwinnipeg.ca/~clark ============================================================================ --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
