Metropolitan Psychological Corporation (MPC) among nine accredited Continuing Professional Education (CPE) providers of the Psychological Association of the Philippines (PAP)

I am very happy to announce that the following institutions were among the nine accredited as Continuing Professional Education (CPE) providers by the Psychological Association of the Philippines (PAP).

  1. Metropolitan Psychological Corporation
  2. The Carl Jung Circle Center Inc.
  3. Volunteer Service of the Allied Mental Health Services for Section of Psychiatry, Makati Medical Center

PAP President J. Enrique G. Saplala, Ph.D. shares that “PAP members can earn credit points when they attend any seminar/workshop given by the above institutions during the validity of the accreditation. The number of credit points of the CPE activity will depend on the number of hours and or day of the activity.”

The accreditation is valid for one year (April 2010 until March 2011).

For program inquiries, you can call the Makati Medical Center trunkline number: 888-8999 (Local 2357) or via their direct line: 844-2941.

First day as a Ph.D.’er


Walking into my Final Defense felt somewhat like this…

Reflecting on the past

Below are some of my thoughts during the day of my final defense–June 19, 2009.

First day as a Ph.D.’er

June 19, 2009

Woke up early today to put the finishing touches on my PowerPoint presentation that was due a month ago.  In total, I was staring at 56 slides and only had about 15 minutes to go through all of them (I ended up being given 20 minutes).  As soon as I was done, I rendered it onto a blank disc (with an extra copy to boot) and headed off for breakfast with my mom at Coffee Bean Tea & Leaf.

In Coffee Bean Tea & Leaf, I was planning on doing some last minute reading but my mom–in her infinite wisdom–told me to “just forget about it” because if I didn’t, I would just “drive myself nuts.”

And she was right.

Nothing can really prepare you for a day you thought may never come…

The Final Defense

As one of the first parties to arrive, I went down to the library in order to make the necessary arrangements for a computer and projector.  It was 9:30 in the morning and my defense was set at 10 AM.

Lots of time.

Or so I thought.

10:15 AM rolled by and the projector was no where in sight.

My saving grace at this point was that my panel chair hadn’t had yet to arrive.

But this provided little comfort as my tension was slowly rising with each passing second.

As luck would have it, I found out that the technician set up the projector one floor BELOW my assigned room for the defense!

But all was not lost as the College of Education stepped up to the plate and supplied me with their own personal computer and projector.

Thank you College of Education!

The Main Event

Of course I was nervous.

I started with a prayer and thanked everyone for making the time to come over and be a part of my paper.

I was also informed that I would have twenty minute to go over my presentation.

Lots of time.

Or so I thought.

Next thing I knew, I was down to three minutes.

I rifled through numerous slides and finished off with my post conceptual framework.

At that point, I wasn’t too confident.  But I thought I did ok.

Deafening Silence

12 noon.

After being asked to step out of the room in order to give the panel and opportunity to deliberate on my paper, I was left to sit in the waiting room of my department.

It was silent.  It was agonizing.

To think, I actually fell asleep waiting!

How embarrassing!

Not long after, the panel finally called me back in and asked me a series of questions regarding certain aspects of my paper.

My mentor told me long ago that if she didn’t speak up.  That it would be a good sign.

And I am happy to say that she didn’t have to speak on my behalf until the very end.

I really hope that I did her proud.

The Final Verdict

I was again sent out into the waiting room for the panel’s final deliberation.

This time around, the wait wasn’t as long and I was immediately called back inside.

The verdict: Pass with minor revision.

I was numb.

4 1/2 years of work flashed before my eyes.

The time I had always dreamed of was now here.


I was truly humbled and grateful to everyone.

Counseling Psychologist. Sport Psychologist. And now, Jedi Knight.

Jedi Knighting Ceremony

My journey reminded me of Anakin Skywalker’s ascension from Padawan to Jedi Knight in the original Clone Wars cartoons Knighting Ceremony wherein Yoda said:

Step forward, Padawan…by the right of the Council, by the will of the Force, I dub thee, Jedi (cuts braid) Knight of the Republic.

I guess, this was my right of passage as well.

Profile: Hannibal Lecter

As I was cleaning up my room the other week, I came across a paper I wrote for a psychology class way back in 2001.  The subject was Thomas Harris’ Hannibal Lecter.

This piece also gives you an idea of my writing style almost 10 years ago.

Hannibal Lecter VIII portrayed by Sir Philip Anthony Hopkins in 1991, 2001, and 2002.

The Silence of the Red Hannibal

Once you’ve read into the world of author Thomas Harris—beyond the course of the sophisticated terminologies lays quite a deafening silence.  It’s the kind of reticence that an individual experiences as they attempt to digest everything that the author has to offer.  Personally, I have likened the experience to that of a familiar “soft cot” located on the darkest and deepest corner of the Chesapeake State Hospital…beyond a “distance greater than human reach”— oh, and least I forget the “stout nylon net stretched from floor to ceiling and wall-to-wall.”

The Becoming of Him:

The ever-sibilant Francis Dolarhyde referred to himself as Him (The Dragon and erroneously the Tooth Fairy as well) during the course of Red Dragon.  An awakening, not only for Gateway’s production supervisor but also for Dr. Hannibal Lecter—the “supporting/supporting” character in the book.

Lecter, described as a small and sleek gentlemen of 41, was often poised with the grace of a dancer and though his role was somewhat “supportive” in the novel…many (“avid fans”) could see his potential to be something bigger…something larger…with the shear ability to transcend the confines of non-fiction itself.

Lecter escapes by killing his guards and eviscerating them.

Forensics’ Special Agent Will Graham, the main character of this piece, describes Lecter’s personality best:

“He did it because he liked it (murders).  Still does. Dr. Lecter is not crazy, in any common way we think of being crazy.  He did some hideous things because he enjoyed them.  But he can function perfectly when he wants to.”

Graham added:

“They say he’s a sociopath, because they don’t know what else to call him…has correspondence with a number of individuals in-and-out of the field of Psychiatry.  That is of course if they amused and interested him.”

By what went through his mind when he was not doing any of these things?  Times when his personal belongings were taken from him because he stepped out of the acceptable norm.  A single thing stood out from my readings—his incredible sense perception.

Dr. Lecter could smell a freshly placed band-aid on an individual who stood several feet away from him…he would conceptualize what he could not visualize in his mind—literally reconstructing it as if it’s presence were before him.  Finally, the ability to perceive deceit—he could see that one coming a mile away.

Incarceration has its advantages as it allows you to explore your other interests.

Am I Evil?

This was a question thrown by Lecter to Clarice Starling in Silence of the Lambs.  Clarice proceeded by associating it with destruction.  And this was Hannibal’s response:

“Evil’s just destructive?  Then storms are evil, if it’s that simple.  And we have fire, and then there’s hail.  Underwriters lump it all under “Acts of God…I collect church collapses recreationally?”  Did you see that recent one in Sicily?  Marvelous?  The façade fell on sixty-five grandmothers at a special Mass.  Was that evil?  If so, who did it?  If He’s up there, He just loves it…Typhoid and swans…it all comes from the same place.”

Lecter again made a similar reference to “God’s satisfaction in taking lives” in a letter to Will Graham regarding the death of a one Garrett Jacob Hobbs,

“…God dropped a church roof on thirty-four of His worshippers in Texas…Don’t you think that felt good?  Thirty-four.  He’d let you have Hobbs…He got 160 Filipinos in one plane crash…He’ll let you have measly Hobbs.”

Profile: Carl Jung’s Theory of Psychological Types

Jung’s Theory of Psychological Types

Berens (1999) describes Jung’s theory of Psychological Types as a departure from the works of Sigmund Freud and Alfred Adler as Freud’s focus on his patients “seemed to be on the external world of adjustment to the outside world,” while Adler’s practice “seemed to be more focused on the primacy of the patients’ inner world in determining their behaviors.” Jung then conceptualized two fundamental concepts known as extraverted and introverted attitudes. He believed that orientation of individuals could either gravitate towards “the world outside your world (extroversion) or the world inside your world (introversion)” (Gerke, 2006).

Mental or Cognitive Processes (Functions)

After a period of study, Jung came to the conclusion that the differences in people weren’t limited to “just the inner world or outer world” but also took into consideration the content of the “mental activities which they were engaged in when they were in these worlds” (Berens, 1999). Gerke (2006) adds that Jung referred to these mental activities or cognitive/mental processes, as functions, which is derived from the performed function. Berens and Nardi (2004) described the two cognitive processes of Jung as perception and judgment wherein each cognitive process is divided into two categories with Sensation and Intuition falling under perception while Thinking and Feeling highlight judgment. The authors add that Jung’s theory focused on the idea that “every mental act consists of using at least one of these four cognitive processes in either an extraverted or introverted way,” thereby producing eight processes.

Perception and Judgment

Berens (1999) defined Jung’s perception, as a stimulus wherein an individual “becomes aware of something” and in the process is able to “gather or access information.” Jung considered this to be an “irrational process” as the recognition of the stimulus was brought about by external factors. Briggs-Myers et al., (2003) define Jung’s two kinds of perception as Sensation and Intuition. Sensing is defined as information which is assimilated through the senses (tangible information) while Intuiting focuses on a person’s ability in using “possibilities, meanings and relationships in gaining insight” (conceptual information) (Briggs-Myers et al., 2003).

The other core psychological process is Judgment or the ability “organize information and drawing conclusions from it.” Briggs-Myers et al., (2003) define Jung’s two kinds of judgment as Thinking and Feeling with Thinking defined as the “function that comes to a decision by linking ideas together through logical connections” whereas Feeling is the function wherein decisions are reached “by weighing relative values and merits of the issues.” Lastly, Berens (1999) adds these four functions: Sensation, Intuition, Thinking, and Feeling can be function on either the “extraverted world or introverted world.”

Dichotomous Opposites

Carl Jung considers functions to be dichotomous opposites in nature. Dichotomous opposites are similar to water and fire wherein the utilization of one is in direct opposite to the other but does not depreciate their value and importance. Berens (1999) considers Sensing and iNtuiting to also be opposite in nature but despite this an individual has the ability to “shift their attention from one kind of information to another” on a number of occasions. A good example would be assimilating sensory information such as a beautiful painting of the ocean and then visualize its representation in the form of intuitive information like the season of summer, clarity, and peace of mind. Similarly, Thinking and Feeling judgments are polar opposites as well. Berens (1999) believes that to be both “value-based and criterion-based” simultaneously is unattainable. But in certain circumstances, both may be used to some extent. One example would be a traveler determining what he or she may need for a particular trip. Through a predetermined criterion, the traveler would be able to assess what is essential for the impending trip.

Briggs-Myers et al., (2003) add that the creation of the Judging-Perceiving dichotomy by Isabel Briggs Myers and Katharine Cook Briggs was brought about “to identify the dominant and auxiliary functions for each type” in the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI). Jung believed that it was important to have one function above all others that are “dominant or trusted and developed” in order to facilitate the “characterization of one’s personality” (Berens, 1999).

Berens (1999) found the following:

Jung also indicated that there was more to a personality type than the dominant function. The dominant process gives a person only one mental process to rely on, and if the dominant process is a perceptive process (Sensing or iNtuting), there would be no way to evaluate information, so there must be a preference also for a judging process (Thinking or Feeling), there would be no way to access information. So the personality is also characterized by having another process play an “auxiliary” role that provides support to the dominant. The idea of a dominant and auxiliary is often referred to as the hierarchy of functions.

The auxiliary process provides balance to the dominant process in two ways.

1) The kind of process, perception, or judgment, is different. If the dominant process is a perceiving process, then the auxiliary process is a judging process or vice versa.

2) The attitudes or orientations of the processes are different. If the dominant process is focused on the outer world (extraverted), then the auxiliary process is focused on the inner world (introverted) or vice versa.

Aspects of Personality

Berens, Ernst, & Smith (2004) share that since we are “complex, adaptable beings,” an MBTI personality type is only capable of “predicting way we might prefer to behave in a given situation and not determine them.” Gerke (2006) adds that when viewing personality types, three interrelated areas much be taken into consideration: the contextual self; the developed self; and the core self. The author defines contextual self as a person’s behavior in relation to the given situation; the developed self then occurs once the individual is able to “adapt and grow based on the choices and decisions we have made as well as by interactions and roles;” while the core self is described as an individuals innate tendency to “to behave in certain ways which influences how one adapts, grows, and develops.”

Distinctions between types

Dissemination of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) can be broken down into three types: reported type, the best-fit type, and true type (Briggs-Myers et al., 2003). The reported type refers to the initial personality type extracted from the answers provided in the indicator. This is followed by the best-fit type which is the type pattern selected by those tested from the “themes and preferred processes” of their reported type that suits them best (Berens et al., 2004). Lastly, Berens (1999) describes true type as “the pattern of tendencies inherent in the individual.” The author believes that since “patterns cannot be measured and can only be mapped or described,” true discovery can only come from the individuals personal cognitive resources. Briggs-Myers et al., (2003) add that although an individual’s type “does not change over time,” they may express their preferences “in somewhat different ways at different times and at different ages, and stages of life.”

Berens, L.V., Ernst, L.K., & Smith, M.A. (2004). Quick guide to the 16 personality types and teams: applying team essentials to create effective teams. Canada: Telos Publications.

Berens, L.V., & Nardi, D. (2004). Understanding yourself and others: an introduction to the personality type code. USA: Telos Publications.

Gerke, S.K. (Speaker). (2006). Jung’s theory of extroversion and introversion (Cassette Recording No, 1). Huntington Beach, California: Ramon Eduardo Gustilo Villasor.