Not much time today for any significant posting on psychological assessment and/or the AACC world conference I’ve just returned from. 5 Days away from home leaves way too much other stuff to do!
However, here’s one small reaction question I pondered on the plane ride home: Which is better: a conference where I agree with most speakers, OR, one where there is wide diversity and quality of work (and some work that is downright bogus)?
I attend two different counseling conferences. One really scrutinizes speakers and makes sure they are in agreement with the organizing agency. The other seems to let any counselor teach if they can write a decent proposal and outcomes statement. The first one protects from outrageous presentations but most likely limits new voices and/or progressive ideas. The second one gives many ideas an opportunity but the listener bears the responsibility to figure out whether the speaker has any basis for their opinion.
Now, I don’t know this for sure, but I’m guessing the first one suffers from highly critical followers who make sure that no speaker ventures too far from home. And I also guessing that the second group has a large following that does not discern truth from simplistic pop psychology.
So, which is better? The first one rarely ruffles my feathers. The second one has speakers that make me want to scream but also exposes me to new ideas and research.
As I said, I’m not sure which I prefer. Both tempt me to have arrogant thoughts…which reveals more about me I suppose.