Posted by alexandra_k on October 17, 2013, at 15:39:29
In reply to above for poet sorry (nm), posted by alexandra_k on October 11, 2013, at 19:15:21
she is hopeless. i was like 'do you think you might be able to say something in support of my application to live independently because they told me the more they have in support the more likely it is to go through'.
and she was like 'i haven't finished assessing you yet'. and i was like 'they don't care so much about dx as they care about my current level of functioning. they want to know about shared vs independent living. they want to know why i can function at uni but not out of uni. and 'you can ask me whatever for the rest of the session. i understand if you can't write anything in support... but can we at least try and do this and you write something if you feel like you have something you can say?'
so she got to ask me anything... and she didn't ask me anything about how i function outside uni (e.g., about my employment history). she didn't ask me anything about what i find hard about my present living environment and how i've functioned in different ones...
she was like 'chronological' and we went through primary and intermediate and high school (again). last time there was a 'drug use at high school' theme but this time she didn't even pull out a theme... there wasn't any pattern to her questions... and she would say things like 'that was a tangent' and i was like 'i was answering your question' and she was like 'i did ask, yeah'.
what was she trying to do? does she even know how to conduct a psychology assessment?
i am reminded of Grice on speaker's meaning... an example familiar to any philosophy major... a professor is asked to write a letter of reference for one of his students who is applying for a job as a philosophy professor. in the letter he writes that the person is punctual. the (unstated) conversational implicature is that the person is useless at philosophy and has no ability to teach. why conclude this? because the professor has violated conversational implicature rules like BE RELEVANT, BE INFORMATIVE, BE TRUTHFUL, etc. if the most relevant and informative and truthful thing he could say on a letter of reccommendation was that he was punctual... it implies that he couldn't honestly speak to these other (obviously more pertinent) things.
Of course things like relevance etc do require a basic intellectual capacity to focus on what is relevant etc etc. I don't think she understands her task.
I worry that Work and Income will read it as a case of conversational implicature because of (what looks to me) like her inability to focus on what is relevant here. Or even to conduct an organized assessment. Or even (based on past sessions) her ability to conduct an unstructured assessment (she was only full of judgement for the way I freely wanted to tell my story - that my doing so was not particularly relevant to wherever the f*ck it was that she thought we should be)
oh dear god. how do i get put with these people?
(answer: i strayed too far from the university).
please put me back lady. i know it is hard for you... supporting me to do something which involves us never seeing each other again. please look out for my interests. just this once. then you can go back to business as usual with all your other clients. oh yes, indeed. whatever the f*ck it is that you think is productive work.
i suspect she was wanting me to switch.
she is not a safe person for me to be around.
poster:alexandra_k
thread:1051233
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20130930/msgs/1052439.html