What is considered psychologically well for work?

[Marshalscienceguy]

I know what is psychologically well according to school. Psychologically well for school means your over zealous, always smiling, when someone hits you that you cry, when someone calls you a mean name you cry, when someone dies in a movie you cry, when someone gets in a fight with you that you are upset about it for a week. If you are able to make a cold calculated decision under a lot of pressure that means something is wrong with you for not letting the pressure get to you. Now I could see where these traits would help in high stress jobs such as military or cop or security.

 

However when you do this in school you are considered a sociopath and a possible threat to other children. So is there a difference in what is considered mentally well for work vs what is mentally well for school? In school they said I was mentally well for not crying over tiny things and not really making a huge deal about things. I was very sympathetic for things like "Oh your dog died? Im so sorry" as I knew that was something major and worth crying over.

 

Since I thought most things were really petty. Such as "I just beat level 100 on dragon master! I am so awesome" and I really wont understand why they care so much. This is considered a sign of a mentally unwell person. Since clearly I should be overly excited about an insignificant achievement that they had when I really dont see the purpose in caring. I was going to take a psyche exam for a job but concerned based on what was considered mentally unstable behavior in the past. Am I going to fail it? I dont know whats considered correct. I just know that its expected you care WAY MORE than I do.

[Essay]

If you are familiar with various ways for determining personality types, such as the 16 Myers-Briggs dimensions, they often list many different job categories or types, which are more well-suited for each unique personality type. That might not help in this particular situation, but in general it might be a direction to approach your goal from?

 

~

[Marshalscienceguy]

If you are familiar with various ways for determining personality types, such as the 16 Myers-Briggs dimensions, they often list many different job categories or types, which are more well-suited for each unique personality type. That might not help in this particular situation, but in general it might be a direction to approach your goal from?

 

~

I have tested as most schools make us take these to help determine our future goals. That however does not change the fact that schools and society seems to mainly favor the more sociable traits. Regardless of how well your talents may be used in regard to employment. Now it might seem more reasonable to some people to say "lets turn these faults into strengths but generally it just ends with a trip to the psychologist and many trys are medication". The list of jobs it said I was suited for was the following. However if these are the psychological standards of the state that might mean the jobs using the same ones. So I am concerned ill fail the psyche exam.

 

*Military leader

*Management(Different type of managers came up often)

*Administration work

*Science

*Mathematician

*Teacher/Professor

*Dentist

*Doctor

Edited November 19, 2014 by Marshalscienceguy

[Ophiolite]

Rule Number Four: Never work for an employer who uses psyche exams.

[Essay]

What sort of testing would list those (seemingly poles apart, to me) disparate professions in one category? I'd try a different test.

 

But in the end, "gets along well with others" is what they try to teach in Kindergarten, though often enough those reports would start out with "doesn't get along well...".

Just keep trying, but not so hard as to be too obvious; just genuine enough.... Gosh, can't we all just get along?

 

~

[Phi for All]

I know what is psychologically well according to school. Psychologically well for school means your over zealous, always smiling, when someone hits you that you cry, when someone calls you a mean name you cry, when someone dies in a movie you cry, when someone gets in a fight with you that you are upset about it for a week. If you are able to make a cold calculated decision under a lot of pressure that means something is wrong with you for not letting the pressure get to you. Now I could see where these traits would help in high stress jobs such as military or cop or security.

 

However when you do this in school you are considered a sociopath and a possible threat to other children. So is there a difference in what is considered mentally well for work vs what is mentally well for school? In school they said I was mentally well for not crying over tiny things and not really making a huge deal about things. I was very sympathetic for things like "Oh your dog died? Im so sorry" as I knew that was something major and worth crying over.

 

Since I thought most things were really petty. Such as "I just beat level 100 on dragon master! I am so awesome" and I really wont understand why they care so much. This is considered a sign of a mentally unwell person. Since clearly I should be overly excited about an insignificant achievement that they had when I really dont see the purpose in caring. I was going to take a psyche exam for a job but concerned based on what was considered mentally unstable behavior in the past. Am I going to fail it? I dont know whats considered correct. I just know that its expected you care WAY MORE than I do.

 

You're disconnecting the details from the person, imo. Beating level 100 on Dragon Master may not be something you care about, but your best friend beating level 100 is a big deal because it's a big deal for him. You don't have to get excited for the game, but can you be excited for your friend?

 

Work or school, the idea is to get the job done while interacting with a whole bunch of peers. Cooperation is one of the hallmarks of our species, and it's one of the things that allow us to form societies.

[Willie71]

Much more simply, psychologically well for work typically means a lack of psychosis, lack of severe depression or anxiety that would prevent one from completing their duties. What you are describing about being well/unwell is not consistent with any distinction I have seen in my 21 years in the profession. Either the assessor did a terrible job (quite possible) in explaining things to you, or you misheard what was said.

 

Did they diagnose you with Asperger's disorder by any chance?

[Marshalscienceguy]

 

You're disconnecting the details from the person, imo. Beating level 100 on Dragon Master may not be something you care about, but your best friend beating level 100 is a big deal because it's a big deal for him. You don't have to get excited for the game, but can you be excited for your friend?

 

Work or school, the idea is to get the job done while interacting with a whole bunch of peers. Cooperation is one of the hallmarks of our species, and it's one of the things that allow us to form societies.

 

Why would I not disconnect it? If a person does something like cure cancer that is a HUGE accomplishment. Why am I suppose to be as happy about someone beating level 100 in the video-game if that their life goal. Shouldn't they be inspiring to do something grand? How is winning in the video-game as significant as say "Curing cancer"? I dont understand why its matters? If I do something like say "learned to tie my shoe" I dont expect any applause. I am old enough and not mentally/physically handicapped or anything where doing so wouldn't be any sort of challenge for me. So why should people tell me im wonderful for doing something as insignificant as being able to tie my shoe? Now if a dog did something like that we would applaud and think he was amazing but unlike us they are not given thumbs so this is harder for them to do. So why is this such a great feet when humans are capable of so much more? Should we really applaud people for being mediocre or should we encourage them to strive for something better?

Edited November 19, 2014 by Marshalscienceguy

[Endy0816]

Might want to look at their accomplishment as a monument to their commitment. It isn't about the "what" it is about what they did to achieve that accomplishment.

 

Anyways, based on what I've seen of the psych tests as long as you don't answer "Yes" to any of the more obvious questions you'll be fine.

 

ie. "Do you hear voices?", "Do the voices urge you to harm yourself or others?", etc.

Edited November 19, 2014 by Endy0816

[Phi for All]

Why would I not disconnect it? If a person does something like cure cancer that is a HUGE accomplishment. Why am I suppose to be as happy about someone beating level 100 in the video-game if that their life goal.

Where did I say you're "supposed to be as happy"? And the part about beating level 100 being "their life goal" is also new information. Are you making strawmen?

 

Shouldn't they be inspiring to do something grand? How is winning in the video-game as significant as say "Curing cancer"? I dont understand why its matters?

The sheer number of significant things below "curing cancer" is fairly staggering, and may not include video games at all. The point is, the accomplishment may not be something you care about, but the person who accomplished it is. Or should be.

[davidivad]

there seems to be a big trend toward antisocial behavior.

this is not an advantage that so many fools percieve.

if you do not care, then how can you understand.

it is that simple.

 

"to walk in a mans shoes is to understand him."

only a fool could argue with this and everyone knows you cant argue with a fool.

 

the end...

Edited November 19, 2014 by davidivad

[Phi for All]

there seems to be a big trend toward antisocial behavior.

this is not an advantage that so many fools percieve.

if you do not care, then how can you understand.

it is that simple.

 

"to walk in a mans shoes is to understand him."

only a fool could argue with this and everyone knows you cant argue with a fool.

 

the end...

 

I think it's a bad coping mechanism. It's not easy dealing with people, but it's usually vastly more rewarding than not. It's well worth the effort and I think it's a big mistake not to make the investment by claiming they're ALWAYS interested in triviality, or that their life's goal is to win a video game. That's not honest, and relationships need quite a bit of that.

[Ophiolite]

The sheer number of significant things below "curing cancer" is fairly staggering, and may not include video games at all. The point is, the accomplishment may not be something you care about, but the person who accomplished it is. Or should be.

I should have retired over one year ago. I currently have no intentions of retiring. Why? I believe, rightly or wrongly, that I am making a small contribution to the betterment of humanity. It will never be captured in any biography, history, or documentary. It is a contribution that barely dents the progress of humanity, but it is, I think, a real contribution. It is, I suspect, above average. I don't have any clear idea what all of this - life - is about, but I choose to believe that helping to make it better for others cannot be a bad thing.

[Marshalscienceguy]

there seems to be a big trend toward antisocial behavior.

this is not an advantage that so many fools percieve.

if you do not care, then how can you understand.

it is that simple.

 

"to walk in a mans shoes is to understand him."

only a fool could argue with this and everyone knows you cant argue with a fool.

 

the end...

Even if you understand why someone does something it does not mean you are going to feel sympathy. What about people who do stupidly evil things because of some backwards logic? Are we suppose to be sympathetic? Even if you understand why they came to this messed up conclusion?

Edited November 20, 2014 by Marshalscienceguy

[davidivad]

yes.

part of being smart is being able to wear one's shoes for a moment.

you may not like it, but is it useful...

of course it is...

part of effective communication is being able to CONNECT with your audience.

 

Even if you understand why someone does something it does not mean you are going to feel sympathy. What about people who do stupidly evil things because of some backwards logic? Are we suppose to be sympathetic? Even if you understand why they came to this messed up conclusion?

i do not understand why sympathy bothers you...

but, thats not what im really talking about anyway.

do you have a disability that prevents you from feeling sympathy?

if so, then i understand. it must be hard...

[Marshalscienceguy]

yes.

part of being smart is being able to wear one's shoes for a moment.

you may not like it, but is it useful...

of course it is...

part of effective communication is being able to CONNECT with your audience.

 

i do not understand why sympathy bothers you...

but, thats not what im really talking about anyway.

do you have a disability that prevents you from feeling sympathy?

if so, then i understand. it must be hard...

I dont understand why we need to feel it for everything. In silent hill they killed a little girl since they said she was evil for being a Bastard child. They were than punished for that crime. No one stopped to say "This is wrong". Would you feel bad for people who did that? Oh you poor things you burned a child alive because of your own twisted logic and now your paying for it. Why do they deserve any sympathy? Its not like it was an accident. They knew exactly what they were doing. It does not matter who they thought said to do it. They could have stopped it. No one did. Why are we obligated to care or feel sympathetic towards everything? Some things are irrelevant and so I should not care, some things are just very irrational. Just because you understand does not mean you are going to be on board. You might not care, you might not agree, you might find the fact they insist on doing so to fill you with irritation. Why is it an obligation to feel sympathy for everyone? Also its great you know how to tie your shoes but so can most people. Again why am I obligated to pat everyone on the back for knowing how to do so? Considering how many people know how to tie shoes as adults do you realize how long it would take to praise every single person? Why do I need to waste time? Would you really feel bad for people who did something like this in real life?

Edited November 20, 2014 by Marshalscienceguy

[ajb]

This thread has gone from the psychology of being a good employee to sympathy for child murders?

 

As for being a good employee, I think it has all be said, more or less. An employer is typically looking for someone who has the correct skills for a given position and just as importantly will fit in with the other employees. By 'fit in' I don't mean 'will be best chums with everyone', I mean will 'not rock the boat' and needlessly course trouble. This is all founded on basic politeness, self-respect and respect for others. You don't have to like people at work, but you have to do your best to make the work place harmonious. Part of that could be sympathy for other people at work; parts of their job suck as will parts of yours!

 

This sympathy is lacking in psychopaths. They are unable to see how their actions will effect others, or more importantly they are not bothered by this. Psychopaths will do well in industries where treading on people and destroying others in the process will put them on top. I expect many leaders in business are clinically psychopaths, but have not been diagnosed.

 

Now sympathy for child killers and similar is an awkward one. Especially if the killers are themselves children. Anyway, you should not confuse sympathy with trying to understand what happened and why. I really feel that the best way to prevent future tragedies is to understand the situations that lead up to killings. I often see a murder as a tragedy for all involved.

 

For example, too often do I hear about men recently divorced killing themselves and members of their families. I think society could be better at preventing this. However, until a crime is actually committed it is awkward for the state to intervene.

[Phi for All]

I should have retired over one year ago. I currently have no intentions of retiring. Why? I believe, rightly or wrongly, that I am making a small contribution to the betterment of humanity. It will never be captured in any biography, history, or documentary. It is a contribution that barely dents the progress of humanity, but it is, I think, a real contribution. It is, I suspect, above average. I don't have any clear idea what all of this - life - is about, but I choose to believe that helping to make it better for others cannot be a bad thing.

 

Having known you for 10 years now, I can safely assert that any field you've chosen to share this ideal with is going to be made better because of it. Thank you for your efforts on behalf of all of us.

 

It's not the size of our individual contributions that counts in this context, but rather the cooperative accumulation of beneficial works that increase human knowledge of the real world, imo. As such, it's difficult to say how the seemingly unimportant little bits might benefit the whole, but that they eventually will seems almost certain.

[Willie71]

This thread has gone from the psychology of being a good employee to sympathy for child murders?

 

As for being a good employee, I think it has all be said, more or less. An employer is typically looking for someone who has the correct skills for a given position and just as importantly will fit in with the other employees. By 'fit in' I don't mean 'will be best chums with everyone', I mean will 'not rock the boat' and needlessly course trouble. This is all founded on basic politeness, self-respect and respect for others. You don't have to like people at work, but you have to do your best to make the work place harmonious. Part of that could be sympathy for other people at work; parts of their job suck as will parts of yours!

 

This sympathy is lacking in psychopaths. They are unable to see how their actions will effect others, or more importantly they are not bothered by this. Psychopaths will do well in industries where treading on people and destroying others in the process will put them on top. I expect many leaders in business are clinically psychopaths, but have not been diagnosed.

 

Now sympathy for child killers and similar is an awkward one. Especially if the killers are themselves children. Anyway, you should not confuse sympathy with trying to understand what happened and why. I really feel that the best way to prevent future tragedies is to understand the situations that lead up to killings. I often see a murder as a tragedy for all involved.

 

For example, too often do I hear about men recently divorced killing themselves and members of their families. I think society could be better at preventing this. However, until a crime is actually committed it is awkward for the state to intervene.

 

 

I have worked in Forensic Psychiatry for most of my career, and agree with you 100%. I don't see people as good or evil, but think we are born where we are due to the social and genetic lottery. People make sense just the way they are. I have worked with 10 teenage murderers, and countless sex offenders. Looking at their life history, they make perfect sense.

there seems to be a big trend toward antisocial behavior.

this is not an advantage that so many fools percieve.

if you do not care, then how can you understand.

it is that simple.

 

"to walk in a mans shoes is to understand him."

only a fool could argue with this and everyone knows you cant argue with a fool.

 

the end...

Every generation talks about "the kids these days" and in general, little was changing, until now. I've been following the research on this, as we have observed trends in forensics that suggested youth were changing. In the past 5 years, there has been a wealth of research on the increased entitlement and decreased empathy in this generation. The changes aren't subtle either, such as a 40% decrease in empathy compared to a couple generations ago. It's not specific to forensics either.

[ajb]

I don't see people as good or evil, but think we are born where we are due to the social and genetic lottery.

I always get a little upset when the tabloid news papers say 'evil killer', 'monster' etc. I don't need the papers telling me how to feel about this and this branding is not helping anyone understand what happened and why. This is of course separate from the issue of crime and punishment. Being 'evil' what ever that means, the social situation of the criminals maybe horrific, the twisted logic of their actions maybe clear, however this does not excuse their actions. It may of course help us understand how to prevent future tragedies. Also in relation to the notion of sympathy, being sympathetic does not mean you endorse or support the actions at all.

[Phi for All]

People make sense just the way they are.

 

This is the part most people don't get. They judge others based on very little information, but hate it when such superficial judgments are made on them. It's a part of our behavior that serves an important purpose, being able to make quick judgments on the fly about various people and situations, but I think it's not the best behavior if you apply it to people you'll be spending more than a little time with.

 

For people you work with, I think it's essential to be willing to dig deeper and learn more about them. And if you aren't willing to do that, then you should at least give up judging them based on inadequate data.

[Willie71]

I always get a little upset when the tabloid news papers say 'evil killer', 'monster' etc. I don't need the papers telling me how to feel about this and this branding is not helping anyone understand what happened and why. This is of course separate from the issue of crime and punishment. Being 'evil' what ever that means, the social situation of the criminals maybe horrific, the twisted logic of their actions maybe clear, however this does not excuse their actions. It may of course help us understand how to prevent future tragedies. Also in relation to the notion of sympathy, being sympathetic does not mean you endorse or support the actions at all.

Validation is the ability to communicate understanding without necessarily agreeing with someone. Sympathy is a different thing. I didn't use sympathy much in my work as many people feel patronized by sympathy. In regards to responsibility for ones actions, this is a very complicated issue for me. I am not ready to say there is no responsibility, but considering how we all justify certain things that others know are wrong, such as speeding, using pot, or withholding information from the tax man, we all feel certain laws are unjust, or don't apply to us. The same justifications are used by the people we call criminals, but they have a different threshold than we do, because of life experiences and genetic predispositions.

Edited November 21, 2014 by Willie71