My Soccer Coach, My New Wisdom and My Best Friend

In last week’s discussion of the assigned readings, my reckless use of puns blatantly violated perhaps the most cautionary principle of writing ever conveyed to me by my high school English teacher (and soccer coach and friend): “clichés are lame.” Further, my frequent reference to Guns n’ Roses lyrics harshly disproved another of his most prominent assertions: “the musical genius that is Jimmy Buffett will never be surpassed (cue Steven Adler: ba dum bum).” This week, I hope to actually embrace Mr. Desautels' most profound literary suggestion to: “write what you know.” And what is it that I know, you ask? Well, after reading this week’s articles, I think I know a little bit about: 1) the prescription privileges debate, 2) the community’s response/reaction to “unpopular”/controversial finding, 3) Hippocratic vs. “hypocritical” science, research and practice, 4) decision-making, and 5) Rorschach inkblot tests. But what is it that I know better than anything else that might help me portray my new found knowledge? Dream chickens? No, been there. Bud Light? Nah, done that. Christian Louboutin shoes? I wish. I've got it...TV. TV became my friend for some time following an accident that kept me out of work...actually, [watching] TV was my best friend for a week or two since the accident made it difficult to do much else. Long story short, we got to know each other well. So well that I feel only too comfortable describing and discussing the nature, content and/or implications of each above-mentioned article as it relates to TV. News programs, sitcoms, reality shows, talk shows, and/or infomercials, daytime, primetime, late night, whatever. I know I know them all. Here we go.

1) Sechrest and Coan: “So You Think You Can Dance?” and “Dancing With The Stars”

In their report entitled “Preparing Psychologists to Prescribe,” Sechrest and Coan describe the curricula and training requirements implemented by current “prescribing-privileged” professions/fields, and explores not only the feasibility of implementing similar programs in the field of psychology, but evaluates the potential implications associated with granting such authorization. The first parallel is drawn between this article and the reality show “So You Think You Can Dance.” As the American Idol of dance, this show follows thousands of young hopefuls as they pursue their goals of becoming professional dancers. In this case, if dancing = prescribing, the winners of the competition = prescribing professionals. Further application of this analogy as it applies specifically to psychologists and prescribing privileges may be seen in the celebrity version of this show—“Dancing With The Stars”—in which celebrities are paired with professional dancers, and for any/all of the following reasons, learn to (try to) compete in dance: 1) they are hoping for their 16^th minute of fame (knowing, however, that it may be found in success or failure); 2) they want to shed that unwanted post-pregnancy baby weight; 3) they are looking for love (…and may ultimately find it and/or heartbreak); 4) they are preparing for a role in a show about a show about a show about dancing; 5) they feel the need to prove once and for all that AC Slater is, and will always be way cooler than Zack Morris; 6) they want to make the world a better place.

Some things to consider: 1) contestants on both shows are evaluated on their: dedication, interest, basic dance foundation, advanced skills, potential to rehearse/ability to perform various styles of dance, etc.; 2) contestants on both shows are judged by a panel; 3) celebrity contestants on “Dancing With The Stars” are paired with professional dancers; 4) what is the motivation? And 5) what are the potential outcomes, opportunities, implications, (ie. immediate vs. long-term, benefits vs. risks, individual/personal vs. professional, etc.)?

With respect to the abovementioned TV programs, the number (and prestige) of the contestants speaks to the fact that there are people out there who want to dance, and the nature of the competition suggests that there are even some (celebrities and otherwise) who can dance. However, determining if, how, when, where, whom and with whom celebrities should dance is quite a bit more complicated. Further, how, when, and by whom are these decisions reached? By the panel of judges or by audience member votes? By the subsequent success of the contestants or by the success of the show? Further, how is “success” of the show and/or the contestant measured/quantified? According to Sechrest and Coan, it will be crucial to consider similar questions and several additional concerns when evaluating the prescribing privileges for psychologists.

For the sake of space, each of the other articles and its respective TV show correlate will be discussed in subsequent posts.