This collection of notes
involves in themes and points of focus and consequently includes some
repetition.
[Last updated: July 28, 2015; first draft published Jul. 17, 2015]
1. High IQ and
Vocational Rehabilitation
A) High IQ and
Vocational Potential
• “Individuals in the top 5 percent of the adult IQ
distribution (above IQ 125) can essentially train themselves, and few occupations
are beyond their reach mentally. Persons of average IQ (between 90 and 110) are
not competitive for most professional and executive-level work but are easily
trained for the bulk of jobs in the American economy.”
[Linda S.
Gottfredson, The General Intelligence Factor,”: Scientific
American Presents 9 (4):
24–29. (1998)]
• “People with low and high IQ scores can work almost any
job at almost any level. But it becomes increasingly difficult to perform well
in very complex or fluid jobs (such as management in an ambiguous, changing,
unpredictable fields) with a lower IQ. An IQ over 115 places no restrictions on
what you can do.”
[Eric Goldschein and Kim Bhasin, “11 Uncomfortable Facts
About How IQ Affects Your Life,” Business Insider, Nov. 22, 2011]
B) High IQ &
ADD/ADHA – diagnostics; false negative
Fact: “Hervey, Epstein, and Curry
(2004) reviewed 33 published studies and found that current neuropsychological
tests are not sensitive enough to pick up ADHD symptoms in adults.” [Brown et
al. (2009) see note below]
Some psychologists (Ph.D)
specialists in conducting Vocational Assessments are unaware of the problems of
psychometric exams with respect to ADD/ADHD. Even when presented with a client
diagnosed by a seasoned Ph.D psychotherapist with ADD/ADHD and who is found
by the evaluator’s own assessment to possess an IQ of “very superior”
rank the evaluator will assume – based on lack of knowledge of the professional
literature on the disagnostic problem – that the lack of indicators within the
standard battery of texts is the “final word” on the validity of the client’s
previously documented diagnosis.
Thus the
assessment report passed on to other professionals involved in the Vocational
Rehabilitation process will make the logical effort of assuming that the
evaluator’s statement that testing produced no indication of ADD/ADHD that this
lack of affirmation should be interpreted as a definitive rejection of the
ADD/ADHD diagnosis. This error will then, it should be no surprise to hear,
produce a cascade of distorted, inappropriate assumptions which undermine the
VR process: a seriously damaging distortion resulting from a false assumption
based on a false negative resulting from lack of knowledge (and lack of due
curiosity regarding the literature on the diagnosis of ADD/ADHD through
psychometric instruments).
[Hervey, A. S., Epstein J. N.,
& Curry J. F. (2004). Neuropsychology of adults with
attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: A meta-analytic review. Neuropsychology,
18, 485-503]
[Thomas
E. Brown, et al., “Executive Function Impairments in High IQ Adults With ADHD,”
Yale University School of Medicine, Journal of Attention Disorders Online,
First, published on May 6, 2009]
[Thomas E Brown Ph.D., “The Mysteries of ADD and High IQ: The
five truths about attention deficit disorder,” Psychology Today, Aug 16, 2011]
C) High IQ –
Underserved by the Vocational Rehabilitation Profession?
There is a question as to whether Vocational Counselors
individually, and State agency policies in general, may be ether passively or
actively failing to serve high IQ clients. Is there an in-built bias against
high IQ clients within the VR industry? Do High IQ clients as a class
constitute an “underserved” group. Are such clients subjected to widespread
negative discrimination?
From an account by a client (“consumer”) of her experiences
with the Vocational Rehabilitation system:
“The VESID counselors are so busy taking care of the
ordinary that there is no time for the extraordinary. You want to know
what the problem is? Being smart is an aberration and us aberrant beings
don’t get served. That observation is called “applying abstract reasoning
to complex social relationships.”
[Anne C. Woodlen, “Tabula Rasa” by VESID (part II),
Anne C Woodlen: Notes in Passing (blog), Oct. 2, 2010]
The client writes of her diagnosis (abilities plus
disabilities):
“About ten months ago, I got diagnosed with this learning
disability, which I never knew I had even though it had kept me unsuccessful
all my life. Seven years ago, a neuropsychologist (who has
Asperger’s syndrome) did some testing, reported that I have an I.Q. of 139
and failed everything because I was “poorly motivated, bored and engaged in
avoidance.” Ten months ago, I got some new testing. The doctor (who
has attention deficit disorder) diagnosed me with this executive function
learning disability and said that I “demonstrated fierce motivation and
tenacity to obtain [my] goals despite how difficult it was for [me] to be
successful . . .” [Woodlen]
Perhaps VR agencies are populated with providers who are
committed to “averageness.” It is clear that individuals whose IQ is two orders
of magnitude above the mean represent only about 2.7% of the total population.
This population is expected to be rather more successful than the other
segments (97.3%) of IQ distribution. Thus the population of clients of VR
service providers can be expected to constitute a tiny fraction of the total
cases – far less than 1%. The larger share of VR cases, persons of below IQ
100, will, it is presumed be seen as in need of serviced that would in essence
“push” them toward functionality that is IQ 100 (the mean). The mean being the
optimum measure of functionality. May this protocol (which I hypothesize) of
“pushing” individuals of less than 100 IQ towards the mean (the left-hand of
the bell curve), be mirrored on the right-hand side. Might perhaps the
conscious – or unconscious – protocol of VR counselors be predicated on an
imperative that requires or favors the pushing of their High IQ clients towards
the mean, to “fit in,” to be function as normative (intellectually average) in
terms of the functioning and intellectual/cognitive capacity?
Are High IQ clients being treated by VR professionals in
such a way that services, recommendations, evaluation protocols, are geared, or
even coordinated, to effectively pushing them downward – towards the mean, in
an effort to “help” them to be “normal” (cognitively average). And is
resistance on the part of the client to the “pushing” seen as yet an additional
sign of pathology by VR professionals?
Hypothesis: Dragging down one group and lifting up
another. – Could there be a latent desire (perhaps fueled by a
misapplication of notions of “equality” employed perversely to denote sameness
in behavior and aptitude, rather than properly to denote equality of
opportunity) on the part of VR professionals, expressed in their models,
methods, programs, and evaluation techniques to drag down those VR clients (a
tiny minority of the total population of VR clients) who populate the right-hand side of the IQ bell
curve, while at the same time exhibiting a sincere effort to lift up
those populating the left hand?
Are Vocational Rehabilitation professionals inadvertently,
or in some cases, deliberately, taking a VR client who has “gifted” or “very
superior IQ,” persons who are capable of complex “fluid” thinking, and then
implementing a series of actions (services), or inaction (denial of services)
that would, in effect, attempt to make the client more disabled after
implementation of VR treatments, than the client was before exposure to the VR
system?
We might consider these questions in light of this
observation: “… a sustained pattern of repeated errors, insensitive behaviors
can cause psychological damage to clients.” [Dean Hepworth, Ronald Rooney, Glenda
Dewberry Rooney, Kim Strom-Gottfried, Direct Social Work Practice: Theory
and Skills, 9th Edition (Brooks/Cole Empowerment Series), Brooks/Cole,
2013, pp. 556-7]
My hypothesis that there might exist a unwritten policy, or
a tendency at least, to unjustifiably and inappropriately “push” High IQ VR
consumers towards the mean – a practice that clearly is harmful to the consumer
in terms of both process and outcome – should be named the
VR “mean push”
hypothesis.
D) On “curing” the
“abnormality” of giftedness; the “Nurse Ratched Syndrome”
Regarding bias against High IQ individuals:
Based on research on cultural variations: “Western Society
does associate a stigma with being gifted. They [Westerners] do not feel it’s
innate [that giftedness is innate]. They [researchers] feel that Westerners
look down upon anything that is not considered normal, and try to change gifted
individuals to become more of a [normative type]. Whereas other cultures …
Eastern Europe, … Asian societies, … respect those people more because they
feel it is an inborn gift.” [Jennifer Carl, Valencia College, video]
In the context of Vocational Rehabilitation we see in cases
where the counselor maintains a crude adherence to the “averageness ideal” a
tendency to attempt to assert control over the client by treating the client
as a patient rather than a consumer. Inadequacy of knowledge and skills on the
part of the counselor my easily inspire a “face saving” tactic that serves the
desire to control the client that can be expressed as:
”When in doubt, pathologize.”
Thus rather than focusing on the individual’s needs on a
whole person basis, the focus shifts to categorizing, putting the client “in a
box” which allows the counselor to feel control and to try to lead the client
on the narrow pre-ordained path established by the set of modular “programs”
that the counselor is trained to deploy – and which allows the counselor to
follow his or her preferred comfortable routine.
This can be called the “Nurse Ratched Syndrome” (after the
famous fictional character in “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest”).
The
Nurse Ratched Syndrome flows from a moral hazard that is intrinsic to
the practitioner/client relationship whenever such client might be
subject to any psychological diagnosis that might in any way affect the
quality, shape and promptness of delivery of the services sought or
needed by the client.
The power relation between provider and client is imbalanced in the
extreme, with the provider holding largely unaccountable and unmonitored
broad discretionary power over the client. The client is thus in a
position where any evaluative communication on his part regarding
quality of services -- whether complaint, request, demand
or criticism -- can be used against him by a provider for self-serving
motives, interpreting any unwanted communication on the client's part as
"evidence" of an expression of pathology. Such a situation lends itself
to reinforcement of personal, ideological or institutional bias and to
the convenient cover-up of unethical, incompetent and unprofessional
behavior on the part of a provider.
Many clients, who are, by definition, of a stigmatized status, are
aware
of this ever-present danger and that awareness can effect the case
progress and outcome adversely, often to a dramatic degree.
E) Expanding
vistas vs. Constricting vistas
The VR “mean push” is predicated
on an ideal goal of promoting averageness or sameness, rather than in seeking
individualized suitability in the true, legally required, sense (“whole person” sense). It does
not essentially fail or harm clients who can be seen as “below the mean” in
cognitive ability (as well as skills) on the bell curve to be pushed towards
functionality resembling the mean. This is an approach that seeks to expand
vistas. Yet the “mean push” when applied to “above the mean” in cognitive
ability, the approach is harmful in that it seeks to constrict vistas rather
than expand them. The “mean push” while seeming to be predicated upon a concept
of aggregate (society-wide) “equality” it in fact is seeking coerced sameness,
and in fact treats individual members of different classes inequally.
F) Failed Reform –
Violating the “Uniqueness” mandate
It is clear from a 1997 Federal effort to clarify the
intentions, requirements and legal obligations defined in the ADA statutes with
respect to Vocational Rehabilitation that Federal officials recognized only too
well that States accepting Federal funding for State VR programs were doing
so in bad faith and were engaged in violations of ADA requirements:
From Hager:
The 1997 policy was, in part, a response to the fact that
many state VR agencies would not approve the training and other services needed
to allow a person to maximize employment potential. RSA's clear change in
policy is best expressed in the following quote from the August 1997 Policy
Directive:
“The guidance provided through this Policy Directive is
intended to correct the misperception that achievement of an employment goal
under Title I of the Act can be equated with becoming employed at
any
job. As indicated above, the State VR Services program is not intended solely
to place individuals with disabilities in entry-level jobs, but rather to
assist eligible individuals to obtain employment that is appropriate given their
unique strengths, resources, priorities, concerns, abilities, and capabilities.
The extent to which State units should assist eligible individuals to advance
in their careers through the provision of VR services depends upon whether the
individual has achieved employment that is consistent with this standard (emphasis
added).” [Hager, quoting federal Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA), Policy
Directive, RSA-PD-97-04, August 19, 1997]
https://www2.ed.gov/offices/OSERS/RSA/guidance/PD-97-04.pdf
We should not that the language here underscores the idea of
“individualized” services, by introducing the adjective “unique,” used in the
text to qualify the following six crucial terms:
1) (unique) strengths
2) (unique) resources
3) (unique) priorities
4) (unique) concerns
5) (unique) abilities
6) (unique) capabilities
In 2015 it is clear that some states have deliberately established policies
that are designed to undermine consumers’ possibility of achieving proper
outcomes (under ADA funded requirements), policies that create misleading Vocational
Evaluations (DVE) and other policies that block the VR process from providing
individualized services that “assist eligible individuals to obtain
employment that is appropriate given their unique strengths, resources, priorities,
concerns, abilities, and capabilities.”
Instead, these states blatantly violate Federally required “informed
consent,” refuse to and allow consumers to be fully involved in planning and
selection of services, and unlawful push the consumer into “any job,” despite
the 1997 directive’s clear language.
Further, the deliberateness of these policies that result in
systematic civil violations are reinforced by the very agency that was
established by Federal law to prevent them from happening: “CAP” (Client
Assistance Program). State CAP agencies create a roadblock that offers the
illusion of due process, yet block consumers from learning their rights under
Federal ADA law and fails to hold VR agencies accountable for incompetence,
extreme (unlawful) delays, deceptiveness on the part of individual counselors
and misfeasance in general.
2. Vocational
Counselors: Ethics and Competence
A) Bias &
Ethical lapses
Quotations disclosing inappropriate approach or support for
policies not complying with ADA:
• “It doesn’t have to be capitalism.” (MH) – Vocational
Counselor’s a State VR agency: statement to a non-profit Vocational placement
specialist at a non-profit certified vendor. Statement was in response to a
consumer’s description of a work ethic approach to be communicated to
prospective (for profit) employers whereby the job-seeker would emphasize a
conscientious engagement with adding value to the employer’s firm, deliberately
geared increasing revenue, profit and reputation for highest quality service.
(2014)
B) Diagnostic
Vocational Evaluation (DVE) – Bias, Blindspot, Incompleteness of Data
Collection
• “We don’t measure reading proficiency [or writing
proficiency] above college freshman level because people who are at that level
or higher have more options.” (SS) – Paraphrase of statement made by Vocational
Counselor (Evaluator) employed by a non-profit service provider (“vendor”).
(2015)
• “[We don’t measure reading proficiency or writing
proficiency above college freshman level because] if, during the evaluation
process, one consumer learns that another has a higher score than
themselves it might have an adverse effect emotionally.” – Paraphrase of
statement made by Consumer Advocacy Program (CAP) advocate employed by a State
agency to assist VR consumers in receiving services and understanding their
legal rights. (2015)
C) Political bias against a targeted class
of clients
“It doesn’t have to be capitalism” was the complaint leveled
by a State Vocational Counselor against the employment goal of that
counselor’s client [MH, 2014]. There is more to this inappropriate statement (and
seriously unethical gesture) than meets the ear.
It is important to consider how a social worker who has been
indoctrinated into the political theories of “social justice” – an ideological
position that is noted for its extreme bias towards “social constructionist”
explanations of differences between individuals and equally intense
predilection for ignoring hard science explanations of major factors governing
difference (biology, genetics, chemistry) – might attempt, whether consciously
or not to promote his or her notion of “social justice” through discouraging
the client from seeking achievement, excellence, individual achievement,
economic success (under “capitalism”), or any other of many aspects of the employment
goal that would be suitable for the client’s achievement that is consistent
with that person’s “unique strengths, resources, priorities, concerns,
abilities, and capabilities,” as is required by law.
Here is an example of the prevalent politicization of social
work pedagogy that seeks to single out a targeted class (“white heterosexual
male” clients) for different treatment (pressuring the client to “change” to
conform to the social worker’s political ideology):
“For example, it would be important for a White
heterosexual male therapist to be aware of how his positionality might
influence his work with a White heterosexual couple in ways that might blind
him to how societal structures are privileging the needs of the male partner,
over the needs of the female partner, and lead him to align with the male
partner’s view of the relationship.”
[Thomas Stone Carlson & Christi R. McGeorge, North
Dakota State University, “Social Justice Mentoring: Preparing Family Therapists
for Social Justice Advocacy Work
,” Michigan Family Review, Volume
14, Issue 1, 2010]
The authors’ specious ideology-based claim that “societal
structures are privileging the needs of the male partner, over the needs of the
female partner” is presented by the professor as fact, rather than as an
example of “critical gender theory” polemics, designed to promote a political
notion of a path towards utopia rather than as a description of reality (bias
against fathers, widespread family court fraud, work-place deaths, male
genital mutilation, military conscription, etc.).
In the subjective, non-scientific political ideology – or
more properly, the cluster of ideological positions (“social justice,” “social
change”) – that are now being promoted in many of the training programs that
prepare social workers for service employment, the profile of the “white
heterosexual male” is singled out for triple-scrutiny as a class of person who
is to be treated with suspicion, as a member of a class to be targeted for
political “reform” – along lines that are consistent with the political preferences
of the social worker who has adopted “social justice” activism (“Cultural
Marxism,” “critical theory,” etc.) as an integral part of practice.
It is not unreasonable to assume that bias – both institutional
and exercised by individual politicized social workers – against VR clients
who are, in essence, members of a “pariah class,” and who need to be
politically or ideologically “changed” or reformed, is widespread and has
infected many agencies.
***
3. Civil Rights
Violations – Non-Compliance of State Vocational Rehabilitation Agencies
A superb study of state agencies’ failure non-compliance
with ADA legal requirements was published in 1999:
Ronald M. Hager, Esq., “State Vocational Rehabilitation
Agencies & Their Obligation to Maximize Employment,” July 1999, Neighborhood Legal Services, Inc.
Following are selected quotations from Hager 1999 unless
otherwise noted:
***
A) Highest Level of Achievement
The court noted that the intent of Congress, in adding the
maximization language, was: [T]o establish a program which would provide
services to assist clients in achieving their highest level of achievement or a
goal which is consistent with their maximum capacities and abilities. Id.
at 365. [reference to Buchanan v. Ives, 793 F.Supp. 361 (D. Me. 1991)]
B) Informed Choice
It has been the policy of the VR system that all activities
are to be implemented consistent with the principles of “respect for individual
dignity, personal responsibility, self-determination, and pursuit of meaningful
careers, based on informed choice, of individuals with
disabilities.” Id. § 701(c)(1)
[reference to: USC (United States Code)] (emphasis added).
Rehab’98 revolutionizes informed choice. VR agencies must
assist individuals in their exercise of informed choice throughout the VR
process, including the assessment, selection of an employment outcome, the
specific VR services to be provided, the entity which will provide the
services, the method for procuring services and the setting in which the
services will be provided. Id. §§ 720(a)(3)(C) and 722(d)(1)-(5). The VR
agency must still approve the IPE, but the individual decides the level of
involvement, if any, of the VR counselor in developing the IPE. Id. §§
722(b)(1)(A) and 722(b)(2)(C). [references to: USC (United States Code)]
C) Maximum, maximize – “maximize
employability”; “Maximum capacities and abilities”; “maximize employment
potential”
“Congress has stated that VR services are to empower
individuals to maximize employability, economic self-sufficiency, independence
and integration into the work place and the community through “comprehensive
and coordinated state-of-the-art programs.” Id. § 701(b)”
[reference to USC (United States Code)] (emphasis added)
“The court noted that the intent of
Congress, in adding the maximization language, was: [T]o establish a program
which would provide services to assist clients in achieving their highest level
of achievement or a goal which is consistent with their maximum capacities and
abilities. Id. at 365.” [reference to Buchanan v. Ives, 793
F.Supp. 361 (D. Me. 1991)]
“Consistent with the increased statutory obligations placed
on state VR agencies, on August 19, 1997, the federal Rehabilitation Services
Administration (RSA) issued a Policy Directive, RSA-PD-97-04. This directive
requires state VR agencies to approve vocational goals and the services to meet
these goals to enable persons with disabilities to maximize their employment
potential. It represents a dramatic shift in RSA policy.”
The 1997 policy was [requiring “‘suitable employment’ as the
standard’] , in part, a response to the fact that many state VR agencies would
not approve the training and other services needed to allow a person to
maximize employment potential. [see: E) Suitable – “suitable employment” below]
D) Self-sufficiency – “economic
self-sufficiency”
“Congress has stated that VR services are to empower
individuals to maximize employability, economic self-sufficiency, independence
and integration into the work place and the community through “comprehensive
and coordinated state-of-the-art programs.” Id. § 701(b)”
[reference to USC (United States Code)] (emphasis added)
E) Suitable – “suitable employment”
The August 1997 Policy Directive concerns the “employment
goal” for an individual with a disability. It rescinds a 1980 policy and
describes the standard for determining an employment goal under Title I. RSA’s
1980 policy, 1505-PQ-100-A, identified “suitable employment” as the standard
for determining an appropriate vocational goal for an individual with a
disability. In that policy and in an earlier, 1978 policy (1505-PQ-100), RSA
described “suitable employment” as “reasonable good entry level work an individual
can satisfactorily perform.”
The 1997 policy was, in part, a response to the fact that
many state VR agencies would not approve the training and other services needed
to allow a person to maximize employment potential.
F) “Strengths, abilities”
To receive services, an individual must be disabled and
require VR services “to prepare for, secure, retain or regain employment.” [USC
(United States Code] § 722(a)(1). Therefore, any service an individual is to
receive from the VR system must be connected to an ultimate employment goal.
Potential employment outcomes were expanded by Rehab ‘98. Employability had
been defined as full or part-time competitive employment to the greatest extent
practicable, supported employment or other employment consistent with the
individual’s strengths, abilities, interests and informed choice. 34 C.F.R. §
361.5(b)(15). Rehab ‘98 adds self-employment, telecommuting and business
ownership as successful employment outcomes. 29 U.S.C § 705(11)(C).
G) “Highly individualized decision” (IPE requirements)
“Any services provided by VR listed and described in the IPE
must be focused toward securing a reasonable employment outcome.
Beveridge and Fabian (2007) explain that Section 600 of the Rehabilitation
Services Administration’s VR Policies and Procedures mandates that the IPE
shall be:
‘Developed and implemented in a manner that affords eligible
individuals the opportunity to exercise informed choice in selecting an
employment outcome, the specific vocational rehabilitation services to be
provided under the IPE, the entity that will provide the vocational
rehabilitation services, and the methods used to procure the services.’
The decision as to how to implement the goal is a highly
individualized decision that must be made on a case-by-case basis (Stevenson v. Com. Dept. of Labor and
Industry, 1994). Whether an employment outcome is “consistent” with the
consumer’s listed attributes is subject to VR approval (29 USC
722[b][2][C][ii]). A plan that is unrealistic given the market or the
individual’s characteristics may not be approved (Reaves v. Missouri Dept. of Elementary and Secondary Educ., 2005).”
[John R. Vaughn, Chairperson, The Rehabilitation Act: Outcomes for Transition Age Youth, National
Council on Disability (NCD), October 28, 2008, p. 32]
H) IPE requirements (see also “Highly individualized decision” above)
“The individualized plan for employment (IPE) is perhaps the
most important document in the VR process. It is the cornerstone of the
transition process. The VR counselor works with eligible youth and the IEP team
to develop an IPE. The state plans required by the Rehabilitation Act must
provide for the development and implementation of an IPE for eligible
individuals (34 CFR 361.45). An IPE is required to contain, among other things,
“a description of the specific employment outcome that is chosen by the
eligible individual, consistent with [his or her] unique strengths, resources,
priorities, concerns, abilities, capabilities, interests, and informed choice”
(29 USC 722[b][3][A]). [p. 31] (emphasis added)
I) Collaboration, “full participation” (“must”)
New York State Commission for the Blind: “The VR counselor
collaborates with the consumer on activities that will lead directly to
employment. The counselor also sets expectations, and direction for any
placement service providers. The counselor, with the full participation of the
job seeker, designs strategies for placement through planning,
trouble-shooting, improvising, bringing in resources (including employer contacts/potential
job leads through networking), and developing options. … Consumers must be
highly involved and participate fully in the placement process in order for
services to be effective.” Vocational Rehabilitation Services Manual - 10.00,
New York State Commission for the Blind]
http://ocfs.ny.gov/main/cb/vocrehab_manual/10-00_CompetitiveEmployment.htm
NOTE: It is unclear whether these requirements apply to all
New York VR consumers, or merely to those who are blind.
J) Cost of services
“Consistent with the increased statutory obligations placed
on state VR agencies, on August 19, 1997, the federal Rehabilitation Services
Administration (RSA) issued a Policy Directive, RSA-PD-97-04. This directive
requires state VR agencies to approve vocational goals and the services to meet
these goals to enable persons with disabilities to maximize their employment
potential. It represents a dramatic shift in RSA policy.”
“This directive clarifies that cost or the extent of VR
services an individual may need to achieve a particular employment goal should
not be considered in identifying the goal in the IPE.”
In Buchanan v. Ives, 793 F.Supp. 361 (D. Me.
1991), the parties agreed that applying a “cost efficiency analysis” to the
determination of an individual’s goals and needs would violate the Act. The
court held that a “cost efficiency analysis” cannot be the major determinant to
deny funding of services. The court noted that the intent of Congress, in
adding the maximization language, was: [T]o establish a program which would
provide services to assist clients in achieving their highest level of
achievement or a goal which is consistent with their maximum capacities and abilities.
Id. at 365. [reference to Buchanan v. Ives, 793 F.Supp. 361 (D.
Me. 1991)]
K) Order of Selection – “must”
If a state does not have the resources to provide VR
services to all eligible individuals who apply, it must specify in its State VR
Plan the order to be followed in selecting those individuals who will receive
services. This is called the “Order of Selection.” It must also provide
justification for the Order of Selection it establishes. However, the state
must ensure that individuals with the most significant disabilities are
selected first to receive VR services. Id. § 721(a)(5). Rehab ‘98 makes
some provision for those who are not served. They are entitled to an
appropriate referral to other state and federal programs, including other
providers within the state workforce investment system. Id. §§
721(a)(5)(D) and 721(a)(20).
The state VR agency must enter into an agreement with other
providers within the statewide workforce investment system, which may include
intercomponent staff training and technical assistance regarding:
[T]he promotion of equal, effective, and meaningful
participation by individuals with disabilities in workforce investment
activities in the State through the promotion of program accessibility, the use
of nondiscriminatory policies and procedures, and the provision of reasonable
accommodations, auxiliary aids and services, and rehabilitation technology, for
individuals with disabilities.
Id. § 721(a)(11)(A)(i)(II). Most of these
requirements are already mandatory for recipients of federal funds pursuant to
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (id. § 794) and for
providers that are covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act. 42 U.S.C. §§
12101 et seq.
L) Equal Protection
Violation – Conscious and Deliberate
“We are not used to dealing with consumers who have high
levels of abilities.” (MH)
– Paraphrase of a statement, made on two separate occasions,
of a state-employed Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor, addressing a VR
consumer’s request for “suitable,” “individualized” services that would allow
“maximization” of use of abilities. These specific terms, taken from the ADA,
were used by the consumer during the particular conversations which prompted
the given statement by the VC. The terms also appeared in a written request read
by the VR complaining of previous improprieties, dysfunctionality demonstrated
by a different VC previously assigned to the case. The written request
specifically mentioned the “civil rights” term in the context of ADA
non-compliance.
The “not used to” statement discloses a specific awareness
on the part of the counselor of a fact of grave importance. It shows that the
entire state system has been set so as to ignore the ADA requirement (and more
broadly the fundamental Constitutional requirement of equal protection) to make
services available to the small minority of consumers who can be classed as
having “high levels of abilities.” It shows that the state agency, though
statistical data could easily predict an estimated incidence of cases in this
class being presented to the state VR agency, yet the state has designed a
program that did not include provisions that would be in place when a client of
this class became eligible for services.
In the case in which the quoted statement is taken, the
counselor was alerted by the client that such a statement revealed an “equal
protection violation,” yet no verbal response was given to the client’s
assertion. Moreover, over a period of months, there was no indication that the
VC acknowledged that the “equal protection” claim made by the client was worthy
of addressing by commenting on it or by seeking to overcome the claimed
violation – by soliciting the aid off senior staff, by contacting information
sources, by diligently attempting to remedy the shortcoming by soliciting new
vendor or locating a genuinely qualified service provider to whom the client
might be referred.
The equal protection complaint, made on two separate
occasions by the client was completely ignored by the VC. No effort is known to
have been made to address it, determine its validity, rebut it or robustly
remedy it.
M) Unjustified Prioritizing of Lower ability, Lower IQ Class of Case
The “whole person” principle of social work is ignored when
a policy is designed that automatically sets clients who have High IQ and/or
high level measurable abilities – solely on their possession of “gifts,”
abilities and cognitive capacities that rank well above the mean.
In assessing and evaluating the need for services, and right
to be afforded services, it is the quality of life as a whole, including:
• the effect of the client’s disability on social
integration, including the client’s emotional response to lack of a culturally
and cognitive suitable social contextualization, such as absence of association
with cognitive peers.
• the economic, financial consequences of unemployment as
well as the prospects of gaining financial independence to a degree that other
“whole person” imperatives are facilitated, such as family expenses and potential
uninsured health expenses, as well as the effect of employment income,
particularly for middle-aged clients, on their financial preparation for old
age (Social Security account, savings).
• the suitability for an employment outcome that is not in
itself a set up for exacerbation of the disability due to its inappropriateness
and unsuitability, a situation that can lead to social isolation, exposure to
social hostility (bias directed at High IQ individuals) unbearable boredom,
depression and missed opportunity to escape from financial dependence and
poverty.
It might seem to be common sense to justify treating High IQ
and high ability clients as persons less in need of services than those persons
who have a developmental disability (low IQ) and limited general and specific
abilities and aptitudes. Yet the problems of social integration and achievement
of genuine personal rehabilitation can be and very often are just as severe or
more severe in the High IQ/high ability class of clients. Only a “whole person”
standard should be used to determine priority. The use of a single axis (high
ability level versus low) in the consideration of need, ignoring all the other
fundamental aspects of the client’s life and situation, violates the
established professional ethical principles of social work. The narrow,
blinkered approach ignores the universal need to raise oneself up to reach for
one’s potential, a need which, when discounted, promotes entropy, failure and
intense misery for every VR client, regardless of IQ or ability rank.
The simpleminded misuse of
prioritizing on a single axis of “high ability versus low ability” is
disastrous for a small portion of population that is in need of VR services,
yet it is both unethical and unlawful for states to sweep this minority under
the rug.
4. CRITICAL ESSAYS
CRITICAL ESSAY #1) Vocational Counselor – Major ethical issues
A VC (Vocational Counselor) may be tempted to exploit his or
her power when faced with a VR (Vocational Rehabilitation) consumer whose
profile is unusual and presents requirements that do not fit in with the
accustomed routines that make the VC comfortable or which require the VC to
gain knowledge from superiors that would be necessary in order to fulfill the
requirements of the individual case. An inept, pathological or more generally
unethical VC (seeking to expedite the process for the sake of convenience, or
out of personal bias; or out of frustration over the demands of the case) may
improperly make use of a “pathologizing” tactic in order to paint a picture of
the consumer. This can occur when that consumer is aware of the legal required
standards governing the services, and communicates an expectation that the
requirements be honored and adequately met by the agency designated to provide
ADA-mandated VR services.
A complex case involving a “high IQ” consumer can require
the VR to be capable of “fluid intelligence” (Cattel-Horn) comparable to that
of the consumer’s own capacities. The counselor may find this inherent demand –
inherent to and intrinsic to the case – frustrating, thereby causing him or her to be tempted to
inappropriately “pathologize” the consumer as a convenient way of containing
the case within the boundaries of routine, convenient and comfortable thinking
and approaches.
In the following quoted comments on this general topic, the
term “controlling” and “judgmental” and “rigid” apply particularly to a
situation where a social worker (or a Vocational Counselor in particular) will,
rather than examining the case carefully and accurately before attempting to
decide on “solutions,” will try to impose a rigid, preordained, restrictively
modular or “canned,” a priori
solution, and stubbornly attempt to enforce inappropriate measures.
Inappropriate “pathologizing” efforts are an efficient tactic by which an
unethical social worker can dismiss unwanted facts and realities and to
transfer, or “project,” his or her own inadequacies onto the client or
consumer.
It is crucial to note that inappropriate behavior or
attitudes on the part of the social worker may be virtually non-existent while
processing routine cases involving modest intellectual requirements on the part
of the provider, yet, when a case is presented that falls outside of
comfortable routines, where it is unsuitable for that client to passively
submit to a standardized module designed for the majority of clients/consumers
(whose needs and abilities are radically differ from his or her own) the
character weaknesses of the provider may be exposed.
In such situations we might observe the social worker
demonstrating an inappropriate desire to control, an inability or unwillingness
to listen actively in order to collect pertinent facts in order to properly
understand the case. In such instances it will become evident that the provider
is long-accustomed to cutting corners and ignoring details, for the quite
understandable reason that the vast majority of cases presented in the past to
the provider have involved lower IQ or average IQ individuals, whose cases can
me dealt with successfully using standard, routine pre-packaged solutions.
Thus a highly competent social worker who is comfortable
with routine cases of low IQ and average IQ clients can, when confronted with a
different sort of case, such as one involving a high IQ client,
uncharacteristically behave in a highly unethical manner, doing serious
financial and general quality-of-life harm to a client. This does not mean that
the social worker is incompetent generally, yet, in a specific case that
involves misbehavior and abuse of power on the part of the social worker, it
does indicate that clients of certain categories are a substantial risk when
assigned inappropriately that (intellectually unprepared, overly controlling,
routine-favoring) social worker.
Following are relevant quotes excerpted from a section
titled, “Pathological or Inept Social Workers” (EP 2.1.1d & 2.1.2b),
published in: Hepworth, et. Al., Direct Social Work Practice: Theory and Skills (2013):
“Despite educational preparation, some practitioners
demonstrate behavior that lacks the basic tenets of a helping relationship, for
example, a lack of empathy or being in tune with those seeking their help; a
lack of genuine and authentic concern; a lack of appreciation of different
beliefs, lifestyles, and values. Their inept behavior may be attributed to
anxiety, a lack of skill or experience, dealing with a problem beyond their
scope of practice, or an inability to build collaborative relationships with
clients. Ineptness and ethical practices on the part of social workers, such as
abrasive, egotistical, controlling, judgmental, demeaning, patronizing, or
rigid behavior can cause an appropriate negative reaction from clients.
In these interactions, clients’ reactions can become a cycle of escalating
conflict. For instance, a practitioner demeans an individual, an individual
reacts, and so forth. It is not unusual for the professional to attempt to
control by exerting his or her power and authority, which of course tends to
cause another reaction from the client. Being habitually late or unprepared for
appointments, appearing to be detached or disinterested, and under-involved are
further indicators of troubling behavior. Most people will react to behavior
that they view as disrespectful or unprofessional. In many cases, a
practitioner would not tolerate similar behavior in a client.
“Ineptness is a serious concern which calls for corrective
behavior on the part of the practitioner, through supervision, skill
development, or self-reflection. Pathological behavior on the part of the
social worker in which there is a sustained pattern of repeated errors,
insensitive behaviors can cause psychological damage to clients.”
[Dean Hepworth, Ronald Rooney, Glenda
Dewberry Rooney, Kim Strom-Gottfried, Direct Social Work Practice: Theory and Skills, 9th Edition (Brooks/Cole Empowerment Series), Brooks/Cole, 2013, pp.
556-7] (emphasis added)
• • •
The distinction between crystallized intelligence and fluid
intelligence*, posited by the Cattell-Horn-Carrol model, is germane to this
discussion. The “very superior” and “gifted” range of intelligence –
characteristic of individuals populating the range two standard deviations
above the mean – in many models stated as IQ 130 and above. The rote learning,
the sometimes naive and overly rigid reliance of fixed typologies, standardized
prefabricated rehabilitation programs, that is comfortable to the practitioner
who relies upon modes of thinking
represented by the term Crystallized Intelligence.
Sparks can fly when two parties, one with a cognitive
capacity limited to Crystallized Intelligence and another with the capacity
for, and habit of using, Fluid Intelligence meet in a context in which the more
rigid thinker is in a position of perceived authority (which more properly
ought to be seen as a position of service) and attempts to dominate the more
complex and thorough thinker. There is no proper parity in terms of cognitive
quality and style, yet the balance of power is weighed on the less robust and
less flexible side of the pairing. Such a pairing results in a conflict between
a problem-solver who is subjected to the attempts of a more rigid, less aware
and conformist thinker seeking to impose an inappropriate preordained
“solution” to a problem (one involving a client whose cognitive style is much
different and more advanced) which, in reality, the cognitive mode called
“Crystallized” is incapable of investigating and analyzing properly.
>>>
*
NOTES for: “CRITIQUE # 1 – Vocational Counselor – Major
ethical issues”
“Fluid
intelligence or
fluid reasoning is the capacity to think logically and
solve problems in novel situations, independent of acquired knowledge. It is
the ability to analyze novel problems, identify patterns and relationships that
underpin these problems and the extrapolation of these using logic. It is
necessary for all logical problem solving, e.g., in scientific, mathematical,
and technical problem solving. Fluid reasoning includes inductive reasoning and
deductive reasoning.” [
“Fluid and
crystallized intelligence,” Wikipedia]
***
CRITICAL ESSAY #2) DVE &
Mandatory ADA standards of “maximization,” “strengths” & “abilities”
i) Non-measurement and its effects
Some states have in place a policy that requires DVE
(Diagnostic Vocational Evaluation) procedures to obscure certain areas of
client’s measurable abilities.
Evaluation (DVE) protocols used by some states are
fundamentally biased and produce inaccurate reports which are misleading due to
deliberate non-measurement of crucial aptitudes, specifically “reading
proficiency” and “written communication”
The failure to accurately measure and record proficiency in these crucial,
fundamental areas leads to a multitude of problems related to compliance with
ADA requirements.
DVE protocols which mandate the production of a DVE report
than deliberately obscures aptitudes that rank above average or “functional” (a
minimum acceptable competency rank) violate basic and inviolable requirements of
ADA statutes. ADA law requires that VR services must met a standard that
fosters the maximization of “capabilities and abilities” so as “to assist
clients in achieving their highest level of achievement.”
The 1999 Hager report summarizes:
“[O]n August 19, 1997, the federal Rehabilitation Services
Administration (RSA) issued a Policy Directive, RSA-PD-97-04 [which] requires
state VR agencies to approve vocational goals and the services to meet these
goals to enable persons with disabilities to maximize their employment
potential.” [Hager 1999] “[T]he intent of Congress, in adding the maximization
language, was: [T]o establish a program which would provide services to assist
clients in achieving their highest level of achievement or a goal which is
consistent with their maximum capacities and abilities. Id. at 365.”
[Hager 1999]
Yet the fact that in some states the DVE is designed to
result in a vague and incomplete
profile, one which that ranks clients who take the exams as falling into
two broad categories only: “below average” or “average” ability (or aptitude)
levels in the fundamental areas of reading and writing, the DVE report can
never, in cases involving individuals with notably above average abilities, to
have their potential for maximization represented accurately. This
deliberate policy of neglect in accurately reporting abilities severely
undermines the quality and appropriateness of subsequent VR services.
Since VR services are required by law to meet a standard of
being “individualized” (or “highly individualized” in Hager’s terms) it follows
that any DVE, an official document which forms a good part of the informational
basis for service recommendations must, in itself be individualized, in other
words that the specifics of the abilities and aptitudes of the individual
client must be properly tested and
accurately documented in detail. An aptitude, aptitude or ability rank that is
vague, unspecific and does not pinpoint that particular individual’s particular
degree of ability will, it goes without saying both create a document that
permits (or even makes inevitable) a false impression of the client and will
lend itself to be used by counselors to provide services that fail to meet the
Federal law-mandated individualized standard. Further, the State, when it
collects aggregate data, will misrepresent the ability levels in any statistics
that are derived from such non-measuring measurements. A minority population of
VR consumers (those who are above average in ability) will thus become
invisible to policy makers and policy reformers.
A minority population DV consumers (those who are “above
average” in ability) is getting a non-individualized evaluation while the
majority (average and below average in ability) if given an appropriately
individualized treatment (meaning that their rankings are stated with
precision). This bias is unlawful. This bias results in a minority class being
denied equal treatment. It is fair to say that this minority class is thus
deliberately and knowingly (by deliberately designed state policy) underserved.
Additionally, such a state of affairs leads to undermining
of “informed choice.” The Vocational Counselor is, because of the improper
policy, armed with a report containing non-measured ability rankings. A client
that might be, average, slightly above average, well above average, or highly
advanced in ability will be treated as identical in the specific ability that
has been given the vague or generic, unmeasured, designation (“average or
above”).
Think of it this way: a freshman student in English
composition earning a “C” at a low-ranked college would be given the precisely
same DVE evaluative ranking in “written communication” proficiency as the
brilliant master of the language, yet substantially disabled, Sylvia Path. The
Pandora’s box of abuses by the VC bureaucracy visited upon its mistreated victim
of what can be reasonably characterized as a “bogus” DVE report can be easily
imagined.
ii) Awareness of DVE impropriety on the part of the VR
Consumer
The subject of the DVE process, the client, is going to be
aware that the non-measurement, once discovered, is improper and is going to be
problematic and the consumer is alerted when he or she first learns that the
ranking – in their particular case is non-individualized and thus correctly
will conclude that he or she is being treated disrespectfully by an unethical,
apathetic, disengaged, or even less-than competent, DVE evaluator. The client
will often feel insulted and will despair over the prospect of a course of
future disappointments in the VR process.
It is reasonable for the client – based on the knowledge
gained early in the evaluation process that evaluations are not being done in
a truly individualized manner that supports maximization of use of abilities in
employment – to project that his or her
goal for achieving self-improvement, independence and needed accommodations,
social integration might very well be ignored or even blocked by an unethical
and dysfunctional VR system.
If the DVE evaluator is dismissive of the client’s concerns
when presented, is supercilious in demeanor, is unwilling to give adequate
answers to queries, the client can easily fall into a state of distrust in
the entire VR system or institution in which the client is engaged with.
If the DVE evaluator offers a nonsensical explanation of
justification in the form of a meaningless nonsequiter: “because clients above
the minimum proficiency level have more options.” (paraphrase), the situation
can be frustrating and feel absurdly “Twilight Zone” in nature.
As Hepworth’s Direct
Social Work Practice notes, “dogmatic and authoritarian behavior
discourages clients from expressing themselves and fosters a one-up, one-down
relationship in which clients feel at a great disadvantage and resent the social
worker’s supercilious behavior.” [Dean Hepworth, Ronald
Rooney, Glenda Dewberry Rooney, Kim Strom-Gottfried, Direct Social Work Practice: Theory and
Skills, 9th Edition (Brooks/Cole Empowerment
Series), Brooks/Cole, 2013, p. 176]
Hepworth notes elsewhere in reference to “ineptness and
ethical practices on the part of social workers, such as abrasive, egotistical,
controlling, judgmental, demeaning, patronizing, or rigid behavior” that “in
these interactions, clients’ reactions can become a cycle of escalating
conflict.” (pp. 556-7)
Thus, at an early stage in the VR process, the stage is set
for distrust and an expectation of abuse and conflict is instilled. And the
client is put into a position where he or she must demand from the Vocational
Counselor some correction of the inadequate DVE report or must adopt silence
for fear of further undermining of his or her access to desired services.
iii) Summary of 5 Fundmental Non-Compliance Violations
Federally required standards violated:
• Individualization
• Maximization
• Informed consent – implicitly in that clients are falsely
informed by intake workers that their evaluation is to be “individualized”;
explicitly in those cases where the client expresses objection to the improper
practice).
• Equal protection (civil right) – in the general sense that
some clients receive individualized measured rankings while others denied
individualized measured rankings.
• Suitability – since VR counseling, services, and the IPE
(Individualized Plan for Employment) in particular, are required to create a
path to a “suitable” outcome, any interference with the correct establishment
of the quality of the client’s abilities is a serious violation of Federal
requirements.
iv) Parallel to Above average IQ clients: The DV “Mean Push” Hypothesis
With regard to the non-measurement of above-average
abilities and aptitudes and the production of a generic “average or above”
ranking of skills and abilities, replacing an accurate measure that the client
reasonably would have expected to underscore the client’s hope for success,
achievement, social integration and financial independence, we see a parallel
akin what is described above as the VR “mean push” hypothesis. The area of
the client’s positive self-perception which the client may see as the “shining
light” of hope for self-improvement and escape from an unhappy status and way
of life, is dashed to the ground – in favor of a bias towards “averageness,” a
prejudice against talent, a stereotypical discounting of the “gifted” or High IQ client as “privileged” and
undeserving of, and not in need of, the assistance that has been solicited.
The fact that the client’s history may include painful
experiences with highly challenging and entirely inappropriate, even hostile,
social environments and tasks, wholly unsuited to a complex
and quick thinker, resulting is irregular
employment history, is completely overlooked and reduced to an impaired
interpretation
false positive and false negative attributions,
disallowing any prospect for rising above boring, painful employment
situations.
***
CRITICAL ESSAY #3)
Uninformed VR Counselors vs/ Placement threough “Informed Selling”
One of the most surprising aspects of the present-day state
of Vocational Rehabilitation, is the prevailing ignorance of VR specialists of
how the job market functions.
From a 1970 publication describing the “primary functions of
the vocational rehabilitation specialist”
“Providing placement services involves finding suitable
employment opportunities or keeping up day-to-day contacts with employers,
placement people, and others, and keeping alert for job and small business
opportunities. Placing the individual involves a program of informed selling.
“This typically requires that the specialist overcome the
more common employer objections to hiring the handicapped. He must convince the
employer that, instead, he will be hiring a qualified person who can fill the
employer's needs. This may also involve persuading the employer to make certain
modifications in the work situation in order to accommodate to the individual's
particular handicap.”
[“Primary functions of the vocational rehabilitation
specialist” in: “Position Classification Standard for Vocational Rehabilitation
Series, GS-1715,” Vocational Rehabilitation Series, GS-1715 TS-84, U. S. Office
of Personnel Management, February 1970, p. 5]
When discussing the importance of “keeping alert for job and
small business opportunities” with present-day VR professionals one will frequently
get both a blank look and an explanation of the VR practitioners notion of job
placement constituting teaching clients to put together a resume and teaching
how to look for jobs and how to present oneself in a job interview. The idea
that a VR program would actively engage with the job marketplace on its own
terms, keeping up to date on trends and opportunities in “real time” is foreign
to most of today’s blinkered and program-centered (rather than client-centered)
VR practitioners.
Even more obscure to the mind of the ordinary VR
practitioner of today is the fact, as succinctly stated in 1970 by U. S. Office
of Personnel Management, that “placing the individual involves a program of
informed selling.”
To engage in informed selling a placement specialist
(as well as all other practitioners throughout the VR process, especially
evaluators) must be familiar with basic marketplace principles such as:
• supply and demand
• cost vs. benefit
• incentives (including incentivization that motivated the
client)
• negotiating (making the deal through communicating
accurately and describing benefits to both parties, employer and prospective
employee)
• trade-offs
• matching client’s skills to available jobs (rather than
relying on the utterly rigid notion of directing job seekers to limit their
choice to a solitary narrow standardized job description classification)
• value creation, communicating value (sales)
• financial risks for client, including opportunity costs
The 1970 “Primary Functions” overview is explicit in stating
that such competencies are mandatory ones. In the section “Qualifications
required” ( p. 7) it states that:
“Ability to obtain and keep up to date occupational and
training facility information through a variety of sources, including
establishing and maintaining close working relationships with training and placement
officials in public and private agencies, businessmen, etc. This also requires
constant alertness for new placement and small business opportunities.”
So we musk ask ourselves how it is possible that in one recent
instance that took place in a three-person meeting between a State Vocational
Counselor, a sub-contracted VR Placement specialist and the client would,
after the client describes a goal of being engaged in commission-based sales
and other market-increasing activities as a career, demonstrating articulately in
his presentation a commitment to “creating value,” that the State VR Counselor
would interject a criticism of his positive pro-active attitude and plans with
the reply:
“It doesn’t have to be capitalism!”
Many
VR practitioners seem to be living in a bubble, a
bureaucracy-centered world cut off from reality. They avoid all
information
that does not fit in a one-size-fits all, prescribed modular system of
pre-packaged programs, a system that attracts people who prefer to focus
on
routine and rigid conceptualization, and who lack the ability to look at
the
client as a whole person, and lack the ability to see the employment
marketplace as a dynamic system with its own particular characteristics
that
must be respected and understood.
***
5. Conclusion
(summary of notes and critiques)
Within those states that ignore the ”whole person” principle
and/or those which are non-compliant with ADA on fundamental and inviolable
requirements (such as informed choice, the maximization standard, suitability,
client’s interests, proper and individualized evaluation as well as
individualized plans and services provided), and those states in which there is
an absence of appropriate quality control mechanism that insures practical
competence and the ethical practices of counselors, there is a civil right
crisis and an ethics crisis. The non-compliant states must address these
failures, both in current and upcoming individual cases, and must do so immediately
– plus these states must set in motion measures to reform their institutions so
as to eradicate the crisis that is being ignored.
Reforming Vocational evaluation (DVE) procedures in those
states that fail to make individualized and accurate measurements of skills of
clients whose skills and aptitudes are above-the-mean (in particular reading and
writing) would be an easy to implement improvement that would begin to pave the
way to a more ethical treatment of clients who are currently mis-served by
biased and ill-advised policies (the VR “mean push”).
***
***
ADDED Footnotes:
# 1 – On Characteristics
of Gifted Adults
From: Francis Heylighen, PhD, “Gifted People and their Problems” quoting:
LIBERATING EVERYDAY GENIUS TM by Mary-Elaine Jacobsen,
Psy.D. - retitled
The Gifted
Adult: A Revolutionary Guide for Liberating Everyday Genius
Characteristics of Gifted Adults
Perfectionistic and sets high standards for self and others.
Has strong moral convictions.
Is highly sensitive, perceptive or insightful. Fascinated by words or an avid
reader.
Feels out-of-sync with others.
Is very curious.
Has an unusual sense of humour.
A good problem solver.
Has a vivid and rich imagination.
Questions rules or authority.
Has unusual ideas or connects seemingly unrelated ideas.
Thrives on challenge.
Learns new things rapidly.
Has a good long-term memory.
Feels overwhelmed by many interests and abilities.
Is very compassionate.
Feels outrage at moral breaches that the rest of the world seems to take for
granted.
Has passionate, intense feelings.
Has a great deal of energy.
Can't switch off thinking.
Feels driven by creativity.
Loves ideas and ardent discussion. Needs periods of contemplation.
Searches for ???? in their life.
Feels a sense of alienation and loneliness.
Is very perceptive.
Feels out of step with others.
***
# 2 - On IQ and Organizational Behavior:
Abstract: We hypothesize the existence of a “somebody else’s
problem” in management education for the sub-discipline of organizational
behavior (OB). The problem regards human intelligence, specifically, the
general factor, g. Although g is arguably the most powerful variable in social
science, OB educators largely ignore it. To demonstrate the former, we review a
vast literature establishing g’s construct validity. To demonstrate the latter,
we show that current OB textbooks place far less emphasis on g relative to a
popular but less potent predictor of organizational success, emotional
intelligence. We also show that when textbooks do reference g, it is often just
to offer criticism. Misconceptions about empirical data on intelligence
testing, denial that a general factor of intelligence exists, the reality of
mean racial differences in mental ability, and the finding that genes play a
non-trivial role in causing intelligence, seem to make OB’s treatment of this
topic “somebody else’s problem.
[Bryan Pesta, Michael A. McDaniel, Peter J. Poznanski, Timothy
DeGroot, “Discounting IQ’s Relevance to Organizational Behavior: The “Somebody
Else’s Problem” in Management Education,” Open Differential Psychology, May 26,
2015]
***
#3 - On High IQ Characteristics and Preferences:
“One thing that normally irritates people with high IQ is
asking them to explain something (complex), then stop listening in the middle
of their explanations. Exceptionally gifted people just can't understand why
one would ask a question and not care about the answer, when they visibly do
not understand that topic.”
“High-IQ people are very individualistic, but they usually
strive for the common good (as well as their own interests). Their passion for
things, their sense of logic, and their desire for perpetual improvement, make
of them good politicians and philosophers. On the other hand, they usually
dislike routine jobs, with predefinied tasks and little space for creativity
and a sense of intellectual challenge.”
[Maciamo, “What characterises people
with high IQ's?” June 23, 2007, Eurepedia]
***
# 4 - On Fluid Intelligence and Vocation
“Within the corporate environment, fluid intelligence is a
predictor of a person's capacity to work well in environments characterised by
complexity, uncertainty, and ambiguity.”
[Wikipedia, “Fluid
and crystallized intelligence”]
***
#5 - High IQ – Depression and Conflict vs.
Self-Actualization and Integration
Excerpts from a paper on “issues for gifted adults”:
Opening paragraph – “There has been comparatively
little focus in the literature on the characteristics and social and emotional
needs of gifted adults. Using observational data, the author attempts to
delineate some of the positive and negative social effects of traits displayed
by gifted adults. Five traits (divergency, excitability, sensitivity,
perceptivity, and entelechy) seem to produce potential interpersonal and
intrapersonal conflict. Unless gifted adults learn to value themselves and find
support, identity conflicts and depression may result. Emphasis on self-growth
through knowing and accepting self leads to the discovery of sources of
personal power. Nurturing relationships through realistic expectations and
learning to share oneself provides a supportive environment in which gifted
adults can grow and flourish.”
“Conclusion – Gifted adults, perhaps more than any
other group, have the potential to achieve a high degree of self-actualization.
Despite the problems that being gifted can bring, the positive social and
emotional aspects of giftedness can more than compensate for the problems. To
continue to hear the flowers singing and to turn visions and dreams to reality
throughout an entire lifetime is a goal to be desired by every gifted adult.”
[Deirdre V. Lovecky, “Can You Hear the Flowers Sing? Issues
for Gifted Adults,” Journal of Counseling
and Development, May 1986]
***
# 6 - High IQ & Misdiagnosis
The book Misdiagnosis
And Dual Diagnoses of Gifted Children and Adults by James T. Webb, Ph.D.,
and others, affirms that “Many
of our brightest, most creative, most independent thinking children and adults
are being incorrectly diagnosed as having behavioral, emotional, or mental
disorders.
“They are then given medication and/or counseling to change
their way of being so that they will be more acceptable within the school, the
family, or the neighborhood, or so that they will be more content with
themselves and their situation.
“The tragedy for these mistakenly diagnosed children and
adults is that they receive needless stigmatizing labels that harm their sense
of self and result in treatment that is both unnecessary and even harmful to
them, their families, and society.”
[James T. Webb, Ph.D.; Edward R.
Amend, Psy. D.; Nadia E. Webb, Psy.D.; Jean Goerss, M.D, M.P.H.; Paul Beljan,
Psy.D.; F. Richard Olenchak, Ph.D., Misdiagnosis
and Dual Diagnoses of Gifted Children and Adults: ADHD, Bipolar, Ocd,
Asperger's, Depression, and Other Disorders, 2004Great Potential
Press]
***
# 7 - “Unserved and underserved” VR clients
From: Rehabilitation Act Needs
Assessment Requirements Section
101(a)(15)
(15) Annual state goals and reports of progress (A) Assessments and estimates
The State plan shall
(II) Include … individuals with disabilities who are
minorities and individuals with disabilities who have been unserved or
underserved by the vocational
rehabilitation program carried out under this title”
[“Developing a Model Comprehensive Statewide Needs
Assessment With Corresponding Training Materials For State VR Agency Staff and
SRC Members: The VR Needs Assessment Guide,” Submitted to: Rehabilitation
Services Administration; Janette Shell, COR; Submitted by: InfoUse, 2560 9th
Street, Suite 320, Berkeley, CA 94710; November 30, 2009; US Department of
Education]
***
# 8 - Pat Phrases: Manipulative Tactics of State Vocational
Counselors
Vocational Counselors are trained to employ pat phrases (bromides,
trite cliches) in order to mollify clients who are frustrated by incompetent
social workers and inappropriate practices and behaviors on the part of VR
professionals and organizations.” Bromides are frequently used to quell fully
justified complaints, to get rid of clients who will later discover that the professional
who had seemed engaged (having made the utterance) is in truth neglecting the
case, has no investment in the client’s goal for success and engages in
behavior that communicates a lack of respect for the client.
a) “There are no guarantees.” – used as an excuse for lack
of effort made to locate suitable services.
b) “You just need to be treated with respect.” – ironically,
this can be used to win the trust of a client who will then find later on that
the professional fails to keep his word, ignores phone calls, ignores requests
for information that falls in the category of “informed consent,” is
unprepared for meetings, is supercilious, makes judgments for the sake of
expeditiousness without ever looking at pertinent case-specific documents,
dismissive and controlling.
c) “Your success is my success.” – a mollifying tactic that
has an adverse effect if later the professional who has uttered it fails to to
his or her job (breaking of one’s word, forgetting to complete agreed to tasks,
etc.) and ultimately dismisses the client’s goals for success, following a
series of failures to behave reliably and professionally on the part of the
professional.
d) “What I need to see in my cases is communication between
the service provided [sub-contracted] and the consumer.” – this will mollify,
yet quickly ends up having an adverse effect on the consumer and his or her
trust in the professional when it is discovered that there is no follow-up
action – that the professional does not contact a non-communicative service
provider, and agreed-upon services continue to be withheld (whether passively
or actively).
# 9 - “Whole Person and “Harmony”
“In the wise choice of vocation there are three broad
factors:
1) a clear understanding of your self, your aptitudes, abilities, interests,
ambitions, resources, limitations and their causes;
2) a knowledge of the requirements and conditions of success, advantages and
disadvantages, compensation, opportunities, and prospects in different lines of
work;
3) true reasoning on the relations of these two groups of facts.”
“An occupation out of harmony with the worker’s aptitudes
and capacities means inefficiency, unenthusiastic and perhaps distasteful
labor, and low pay; while an occupation in harmony with the nature of the man
means enthusiasm, love of work, and high economic values, – superior product,
efficient service, and good pay.”
[Frank Parsons,
Choosing a Vocation, Boston: Houghton
Mifflin Co., 1909, p. 3]
“Research has
verified Parson’s observations: People who find satisfaction in their work
exhibit higher levels of commitment, competency, and productivity and report
higher levels of life adjustment (Auty, Goldman, & Foss, 1987; Henderson, 2000;
Mueller, 2003; Stott, 1970).”[James R. Stone, Morgan
V. Lewis, College and Career Ready in the 21st Century: Making High
School Matter, New York: 2012, Teachers College, Columbia University, p. 37]
# 10 - State
claims that the applicant is perhaps ineligible for services due to applicant
not meeting a threshhold definition of “disability”
“Congress amended the ADA in 2008 to restore the civil
rights of Americans with disabilities and overturn four Supreme Court decisions
that had inappropriately narrowed the protections of the ADA. The
Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act, signed by President Bush on
September 25, 2008, emphasizes that the definition of disability should be
construed in favor of broad coverage of individuals to the maximum extent
permitted by the ADA and generally shall not require extensive analysis.”
[“Disability Rights,” AAPD, undated, circa 2012-2015]
***
***
***
