Do psychologists make good money in private practice?

1. How long is a session?
2. Is that after overhead?
3. What about testing?

~$100 per session/hour*
Most psychologists i've met under 35 have no idea what they're doing. lot of them are dismissive of jung and freud etc..its crazy. absolut state. itd be like modern philosophers not reading Aristotle. speaking of philosophers. 1k eoy, buy link

When I was in uni back in 2011 I remember talking to some psychology student and he mentioned how Freud was debunked or something and isn't considered serious in the field anymore.

yes after overhead. testing, for an entire eval say $2500 flat including testing and sessions for an individual report. family evals say $7500 flat, out of pocket. insurance doesnt cover that. also looking at 35ish page reports for family tests. lot of time. its good, necessary work though. just dont set up in a shit hole

>As made up bullshit illnesses like “video game addiction” become a real thing
FTFY

yep. its absolutely ludicrous. I'm not a psychologist myself but ive been reading psych material actively for 20 years

Thank you for the info. Is there saturation in the field?

It's mostly because their ideas have largely been debunked. It'd be akin to teaching students heliocentrism in schools.

i dont think so. not where youd set up ideally, like a suburban area near a city. this way you get mostly middle class as well as some white collar cityfags. you normally dont need to worry about low iq people seeking therapy because they dont understand or believe in it, likely dont even know about it. unless you take patients from courts, which is interesting but exhausting work for comparable pay. there are tons of psychiatrists now, tons of social workers. most of the latter are just wanna be do-gooders in urban areas. if youre a stable, intelligent psychologist in a location like i described you could build a great, long term practice for yourself

you can't debunk Freud. you can disagree, many great psychologists do, but you can never disregard

I've heard locally that if youre a psych major you're pretty much drilled in the first year to disregard freud
I wonder what (((they're))) so afraid of

Attached: 1413914298726.jpg (980x952, 445K)

the t r u t h

I'm not into Psychology and only entered this thread because of Ana de Armas, but what is the rational behind dropping Frued? What did he teach that modern psychology dislikes so much?

Why can't he be debunked, only disagreed with?

psychology is about unraveling the unconscious. determining what makes someone behave the way they do. there are millions of variables that seperate each individual. the psychologist catalogs these variables, to determine why the individual acts the way they do. each individual requires a different approach. lets say the counscious, someone's M.O. is point B. freud's approach, everything is sexual, is not always the most viable path to point B. but sometimes it is. it is dependent on the individual you're examining. now one can say, individual 1 did not reach point B through frued's sexual path, but you can never say NO individual has ever reached point B through freud's path. its like saying we dont need addition, and can just use division and subtraction and multiplication. the truth is you need a different formula between each individual, and most often youll use many equations to find the correct formula. this is why, to say freud's path is never useable is wrong. and more than any other psychologist, freud's ideas are included in the majority of successful formulas, just in varying amounts. there may be 60% freud in a formula or 5% but never 0

His major ideas caught on so well that we're not still aware that he contributed them; they appear self-evident now. Consequentially all that we're aware of now are his mistakes.

Attached: 1527801835701.jpg (1200x1200, 187K)

yep. we don't even need to look at his practices. he is the father of psychology

See, it's complete nonsense.

Lesbian Psych 101 teachers say he's 'disproven' (even though he's built the strongest theory to date) because he was 'sexist' by today's standards. They still have to teach the stuff though, because at least the Psych head of dept who chooses curriculum materials are still based.
For now

>everything a person does is for sex
if you think about it, (at least for men who dont live in poverty etc.) it kind of is..

Holy shit hnnng

Thanks for explaining all that, I kinda understand it with my limited understanding of psychology. I'm not sure I agree that literally everything is sexual, I'd have to look more into his theory's to really have an opinion on him. So modern psychologists want to ignore his work because of political reasons?

Also would you recommend going to a psychologist if I don't think anything is wrong with me? Seems like it would be of novel interest to be analysed if they might give me back useful information about myself. Not gonna do it now since it's a waste of money but once Link takes off I might waste a bit of money and go to one. Is this recommended or should you only see one if you have mental problems?

laughter is the best for trauma! youtu.be/tFyHc4NMXLU

Yeah you don't need to
>have something wrong with you
to see a psychologist. I can't remember right now, but I think Freud actually said he always made sure to call his patients, clients, and never patients. Patients implies there's something wrong with you. Could've been Jung. I really can't remember kek. But it's a good point

Also fucking check em
dubs, double dubs, trips on the most recent

>not calling them your project

kek

...