PJTV: Psychology and Politics
Many people do not trust psychologists and with good reason. They exclude half of the population or more due to their leftist politics. Barbara Oakley, author of Evil Genes,
shares her insights on the American Psychological Association (APA) and their discrimination and stereotyping of any of us who do not agree with their leftist views. Is the APA a non-partisan 501(c)(3) or an organization of partisan hacks? Listen to the show and decide for yourself.
You can see the show here.
Labels: PJTV, psychology
posted by Helen at 6:25 PM
65 Comments:
There's a difference between being a "non-partisan" organization and having a partisan constituency. If the APA as an organization is officially endorsing political candidates or parties then they are definitely in violation of 501(c)(3) rules. The comment about [cough]Barack[cough] is surly borderline and should be addressed if only for the reason that it puts the organization at risk for losing non-profit status.
It sounds like the APA board has a maturity problem. How can that be solved? Other "liberal" non-profits seem to be able to successfully pull off non-partisanism. The ACLU is characterized by largely liberal membership but has no problem continuing it's campaigns against a democratic administration (Clinton and now Obama).
It seems only a matter of time before the APA declares conservatism a mental illness. That way, they can use psychology to impose their political opinions like the Soviets did in the "good old days". Back then, dissidents were often sent to mental hospitals if not outright murdered. After all, anyone who opposed the "Workers' Paradise" had to be insane, right?
In the interview Barbara Oakley mentions the people who are getting the benefit of psychological treatment aren't necessarily the ones with the deep easily-diagnosed psychological challenges.
Now who wants to hear about my week?
There is a man with whom I have occasionally had to interact on a professional level. He has annoyed me to no end. He is the rudest, nastiest, most horrible, bad-tempered individual I have ever met. We have butted heads for 13 years, and not in a good way. There's been yelling, name calling and some vicious emails between the 2 of us, and, sadly, he has not brought out the best in me.
For 13 years I have wondered why this a-hole was ever given a public policy position within his department. I'm no psychologist nor do I care really about this man, but I do care about my own sanity. I've seen Asperger's Syndrome mentioned on the board but I didn't really know what it was. I was reading something 2 weeks ago when I realized that might be what ails this man. I went to the Internet and I have never seen a squarer peg for a squarer Asperger's Syndrome hole. There is a reason this guy is the way he is!!!!!
So I've been talking to him recently and I asked if he has ever been diagnosed. According to him he hasn't. I know this man sees a variety of doctors for a variety of afflictions, and, at least to him no doctor has mentioned that he might benefit from a diagnosis. Having said that, his employer must know that he has a psychological challenge, yet they've never even bothered to ask or delve into this. Instead they promoted him into a job that he should have never had had, watched him flounder and fail, then demoted him.
Being the quick-study that I am, it's taken me a week to turn this man into a flexible puppy dog. So, in conclusion, I agree that the psychological community could operated on a much more scientific and professional level by insisting the medical community refer patients that clearly have psychological issues to competent psychological experts where they can at least get a diagnosis and some coping skills.
This whole situation reminds me of the fat sick person who sees a doctor for help managing their diabetes and the doctor doesn't mention the extra 100 pounds the patient is sporting around their waist.
I found that pretty amazing for an engineering prof to be so up on psychology! That just does not happen very often at all, maybe 1 in 100,000,000!
She was rather articulate, and had a lot to say of interest. Very interesting interview!
Cham...tell us more. Here's a guy you've had a long-term awful relationship with, and somehow you get away with asking him if he's been diagnosed, evidently without an explosion.
I'm sure you have suave & debonair sales skills, but this is pretty impressive..or maybe he's just on temporary good behavior with you for some reason?
He's on temporary good behavior. I don't know what tomorrow will bring. Frankly, I'm not sure I believe anything he says.
The APA is in no danger of losing their tax exempt status as long as the White House is occupied by a politician from the Chicago Democratic political machine. Particularly a Democrat with a history with ACORN that goes back for decades.
In fact, considering the shit storm that the ACLU and MSM would kick up if a Republican administration started investigating the APA's violation of its non partisan obligations, the APA has no incentive to rein in its more partisan lecturers except for the incentives of personal and professional integrity and that train left the station a long time ago.
I think that criticism from outside the psych community is very helpful, especially when it comes from other, more physically or measurement grounded disciplines.
Kind of like the mathematical and microbiological critiques of Darwinian theory. Sometimes, our trees obscure our view of the forrest.
Trey
Are therapists required t be members? If so, object to leftist views. If not, quit.
Cham, is it necessary to be around this guy, for work, etc.?
If not, well, you know, walk away.
Br549: You got it! 13 years ago I had a minor need, what should have taken 2 weeks ended up taking 11 years. I'd approach this man and politely start a discussion about what I needed. He'd look right through me and then walk away. It was maddening. I'm very glad I don't have to deal with him anymore.
I feel incredibly sorry for him now.
According to these two, liberal psychologists are irrational. I wish they would watch themselves and take notice of all the overgeneralizations, black and white thinking, non sequiturs,and ad hominems.
These two just don't like the fact that there are many unfavorable psychological conclusions about conservatives in the psychological literature. If unfavorable conclusions about liberals could be found within the psychological literature, I wouldn't discount it and attack the whole field of psychology. I would simply be asking "why do so many liberals do or think x?" Instead, these two attack the whole field of psychology.
Oakley isn't even a psychologist and she's promoting a psychological construct. THE OAKLEY whatever. Has she done any studies related to her concept? I think heard her say "no" in previous blog posts. She also puts a lot of stock into personality disorders. According to her, these are the REAL disorders. All I can say, is "Uhhhm, yea." Please stick to magnets doctor Oakley.
Welcome back Miles! How was Colorado? By the way, I am still waiting for the materials on the validity of that test you were saying you had. Could you post that here please?
"These two just don't like the fact that there are many unfavorable psychological conclusions about conservatives in the psychological literature."
No, not at all. Helen has posted about her complaints before. Here are a couple of them. The APA gave a lifetime achievement award to a past president who lost her license to practice for sleeping with a patient.
The same president shouted down the man who championed taking homosexuality off the list of diagnoses. In a public meeting she said that he had nothing to add to the discussion because he was a white male. This act of bigotry and racism occured before she was given the lifetime achievement award.
So do just a smidgen of research and you will look less like a troll.
And about those citations I asked for two weeks ago?
I eagerly await them.
Trey
Miles, Personality Disorders are widely accepted as valid diagnoses. Why would you have so much trouble recognizing them as such? Is this a personal issue with you?
Trey
Trey, you do understand, I hope, the high probability that Miles does not have those citations, don't you? I agree it is a very good idea to continue to ask for them, but don't get your hopes up. The likelihood of seeing them is rapidly diminishing. It is much more enjoyable for Miles to move on to criticizing conservatives for something else, than it is to look up some dusty old citations that he probably never had in the first place.
Oh, and "Oakley isn't even a psychologist... THE OAKLEY whatever." but she does make pretty good sense. She even explains what she is talking about in rather clear terms that make sense to ordinary people, so how could she be a learned person, qualified to discuss psychology? That's an on-going problem with these uppity engineers.
Anyone wondering why the APA, and Psycho-ology is so far left wing, ought to go to the source of the science, and discover that the “Social Science’s” designer was, in fact, a totalitarian himself, and created this farcical “science” from a point of deeply disturbing intentions: Social Science for a Non-Free Society
Don’t forget the millions in communist countries that have been “sent away” to gulags or other such places, by the recommendations of psychologists who got to decide who was normal and who wasn’t. Btw, I have yet to meet a “normal” psychologist. Most people who even seriously study psychology, do so out personal reasons of f*cked-upness, and a desire to rationalize their own twisted, screwed up lives. It’s pathetic that these people have more power in society than a mere screw-ball gypsy with a crystal ball.
Pumping gas would be a great career change for psychologists, I tell you. It equals value for society, which is more than they can say now.
Rob, that is an interesting link. I had not heard of Comte in any of my history of psych courses and he predates the folks I was taught about.
I think that approach is still alive today, it reminds me of the history of the ACLU and Planned Parenthood. I will read it more thoroughly later, but it is quite interesting.
Thank you.
In my thoughts about why people go into applied psychology, I think there are three primary motivations. Some of us like to help, some of us like to know, and some of us like to act out. I like to help, but more and more, I also like to know. I do not feel the need or temptation to act out in my practice, though I certainly do occasionaly in my posts.
So I disagree with you about the totality of shrinks wanting to act out, but I thank you for some interesting new information.
Trey
Please stop trying to justify your filthy profession, trey.
It is pathetic.
As one who believes there is "something wrong with everyone" to one degree or another,(and yes, I resemble that remark)it is my belief psychology has been most helpful.
I am not trained on the brain in any way, but I have been exposed to personality disorders (used to be called character flaws) as well as mental illness that actually responds to drug therapy in a way where the patient can at least participate in society, if on a reduced level. I watched helplessly as a loved one descended into hell while trying to take the entire family along. The craziest thing about it was she had the help of trained professionals, police, courts, and lawyers. It becomes very difficult to believe you are right when all those powers are against you. My kids and I are forever grateful that I didn't give up. I don't know if love can conquer all, but it can definitely persevere.
I don't see a child molester or a sociopath ever being cured. Even if that were possible, never forgiven, never again allowed to "roam free". People suffering depression or phobias can be, and are helped, every day.
A lot of those in the profession are obviously left wing. I've seen it first hand and poured my own experiences out in this blog in times gone by. By the way, I appreciate being able to do so.
I am concerned that perhaps flaws and illness could become defined by ones political persuasion. Or that perhaps it already is. Sometimes one just has to go dumpster diving and pick through the trash to find the good.
regarding asperger`s, i recently had a family case where the child was clearly displaying groups of behaviours that fit within the spectrum of asperger`s.
i presented my observations to the parents, who went to thier family doctor for a referral to a specialist.
he refused by saying he didn`t agree with me.
i then referred them to a psychologist who works for the region who put them on a list for an evaluation.
the waiting list for the evaluation is two years, by which time the child will be 18 and the parents felt that the wait period would be too long to help them as a family.
the child will then be an adult and will probably go on some form of assistance and be placed in a group home.
tragic.
it was clear to me by spending a few minutes with the boy and listening to the anger of the father and mother when relating some of the, to them, bizarre behaviour of the child growing up.
it makes me wonder where the "professionals" in the schools were all this child`s life.
and by the way, many high-functioning people such as doctors, judges, accountants and bankers are asperger`s cases.
many fields where chronic attention to detail and sociopathic type behaviour are an asset draw the higher-functioning asperger`s types, and they happily roll along unless they have to interact with others too much socially within the job.
much like cham`s friend.
Br549:
That's specifically NOT psychology. Psychologists, while they usually talk a good talk about antidepressants and the like, are not allowed to prescribe medicine and that is not their area.
There is a point of view (also held by some psychiatrists) that psychology itself has little value. If the problems are small, just talking to a friend may bring the same thing as talking to a "therapist"; if the problems are large (think institutionalized people), drugs make a difference and talk doesn't so much.
If you have a common problem like depression or anxiety, and you are of at least reasonable intelligence, I personally think it is much more beneficial to read up on various treatment methods YOURSELF, either on or off-line, than it would be to wade through the mass of kooky people, snake-oil salesmen and arrogant dim-wits that make up most of psychology to get through to the few people who provide the right information.
This comment has been removed by the author.
You might also want to go Shrinkwrap, read the discussion on the APA's assessment of AGW skeptics.
Is it not obvious that psychology is a pseudoscience along the lines of augury?
This is not to say that many psychologists actually do their patients good (as opposed to the unmitigated evil the APA does), but this seems to be the result of an intuitive understanding of people that has not been debased by pseudoscientific cant.
I just went to the APA Web site and am going to look through it out of curiousity, but the very first thing I saw at the top was "Can Psychology Stop Climate Change?"
I think "mission creep" would be a bit of an understatement there. Who the hell do they think they are?
There have been many of "reasonable intelligence" who have attempted, even succeeded, at suicide. Perhaps they should have called Ghost Busters, or at least gone on line or to Barnes and Noble.
Yup, because no one who has gone to a psychologist has ever committed suicide, br549.
"Can Psychology Stop Climate Change?"
no.
can algore?
well, he does have his nobel, so maybe.
oh, and by the way, it`s the sun doing the heating of the planet.
inconveniently obvious?
al`s ego is big enough he might be convinced to have a word with the sun about it.
"... it`s the sun doing the heating of the planet."
----------
So the solution is obvious: We just send in enough H-Bombs to make the sun go nova and after that there won't be any global warming.
Simple, effective and ... genius.
That, JG, is the left wing side of psychology. The social engineering side. We need to be convinced that the lefties of the APA know what is right for all, even to the point of changing how we think in order to "stop global warming". It would be hilarious were it not becoming affective.
Much has been discussed in this blog that pre-date your regular visits. What you have just touched on has been one of them.
Psychology probably could stop climate change. If people could start equating their actions with increased carbon emissions they might be motivated to change their behavior to affect climate change.
But I don't think affecting climate change should be the mission of the APA. I think the mission of the APA should be to figure out how best to treat patients, document psychological disorders and educate the medical community and general population regarding potential psychological treatments.
I have no idea whether they do this or not.
"Psychology probably could stop climate change."
------
Even if human actions are reponsible for less of it than the Left claims?
If it is a natural cycle (and remember that permafrost core samples show that CO2 levels and temperatures were much higher at periods in the distant past), then ONLY the God-like powers of psychologists are going to save us.
I kind of picture the APA as a sort of "League of Super Heroes". With powers far beyond ours, they are going to save us from evil.
Rob, you are one angry dude. Your anger is so strong you cannot even read a post correctly. I would suggest that you go see a therapist, but, that would be silly. How about seeing a minister, just somebody to help you recognize the difference between what is inside you and what is outside you.
Really, no fooling.
God bless you.
Trey
"drugs make a difference and talk doesn't so much."
That is not what the research says. Here is a link (to the APA site of all places) that has some of the efficacy research citations and summaries.
Why not read over the material and share your thoughts.
Or just get rude and angry. 8)
Trey
"Who the hell do they think they are?"
The non-religious saviors of humanity. Alas.
Trey
Take a poke at him while you appear to be a caring person, TMink?
You make me angry too, frankly, but psycholgists have taught me to say "gooz-fraba" until I am calm.
(Actually, that's from the movie "Anger Management" with Jack Nicholson).
"That is not what the research says."
-----------
TMink, you didn't even provide a link, but you can believe me that I'm not going to go through your cherry-picked articles from the APA.
"I kind of picture the APA as a sort of "League of Super Heroes"."
That is spot on. Like most progressives, they are narcissistic at the core. They deeply believe that they know better, that humanity is basically good, only shackled by religion (Christianity in particular, as it holds that we are sinful human beings who are not equipped to make good decisions on our own) and ignorance.
They know better than the rest of us, especially those of us who believe in personal responsibility and the saving grace of Christ.
But I have to go to Sunday School.
Trey
This comment has been removed by the author.
"That is not what the research says."
[research from the APA]
----------
And in other news, research financed and supervised by Nationwide Insurance Company says that you definitely have too little insurance.
There is nothing I love more than a good mission statement. Mission statements were all the rage back in the 80s, and I have learned to my delight they can be used against there own organizations.
So I couldn't help but look. The APA's mission statement is as follows:
"The mission of the APA is to advance the creation, communication and application of psychological knowledge to benefit society and improve people’s lives."
I'm not sure climate change or politics is covered under that. Helen, you'd be a fool not to bring this to their attention. Happy fun times will ensue, I promise.
Depending on what one "owns", or how many children of young age one has, too little insurance is a definite possibility for most. I'm not sure at times where you are going JG, except to ratchet your point of view one click at a time, or add or detract a little here and there to again be "right". It's been fun, though.
On a different but intimately related topic, I see that Microsoft has advertisements coming out now to combat the uncool stereotype they've had slapped on them by Apple. These ads have apparently been highly effective.
Why aren't Republicans supporting similar ads to combat the racist, narrow-minded stereotype that's been plastered on them by Democrats?
This comment has been removed by the author.
Tmink, Colorado was fun! Thanks for inquiring. As for your request for studies related to IAT validity, you won't get it. Why? I sense you don't really care if the IAT has validity. You seem to only care about "teaching me a lesson" about providing evidence for beliefs. If you really were curious about the IAT's validity, you would seek out the information yourself. I simply typed in IAT and validity on google and found ample studies which have validated the IAT as a measure of implicit association. Tmink, I think you are a person who simply likes to argue for arguments sake. You are not truly interested in reviewing peer-reviewed knowledge. You are too busy trying to confirm your own unsupported beliefs. Therefore, it is not worth my time to engage you in discussion. :)
@ Barb Oakley
You raise a really very interesting point. I have to think that the answer lies in the fact that the Republicans do not have the same number of smart people at the top of their organization (where the decisions are made) that Microsoft has. It may yet happen, but it may be a long time in coming if it ever does occur. The top of the Republican party is dominated by politicians, who are not necessarily smart people.
So Miles has an alter ego named Milda. Who knew?
@ Dr. D.
Well, keep in mind that Apple's been doing their ads for quite a while, and it's only now that Microsoft is responding. Maybe Republican leadership just needs a big fat nudge.
unabashed self-promotion alert!
http://hypgnosys.blogspot.com/2009/08/radio-interview.html
my recent radio interview with marc stevens of the no state radio show, talking about pre-conditioned fear and control in our society, wherein i explain how we have arrived at this state of constant fear of government and it`s agents...
Perhaps this is precisely what the APA and psychology in general needs, an outside check. To those of us who are conservative, anything one sided begins to look like a cabal, and an evil one. Without trust, just like with money, checks, or other such, value is lost. If they wish to be irrelevant, all they need to do is continue as they are.
Beside that, I think many conservatives are beginning to see (or already do) liberalism as evil. To know what evil is, look to it's fruits. And it's fruits are not good. As for good intentions, those pave the way to Hell (literally). It is good to know there are (two, you and Neo-Neocon) conservatives in your field. But you are the ONLY two I have ever even heard to be conservative.
Dr. D. let me clear up your misperception. My wife uses my computer and signs on to google. I left a message on this blog while she was signed on. For some reason, it left her name attached to the blog. She doesn't frequent this blog, so it is kind of odd.
DOH!
I did forget the link!
Here ya go JG. And I did not pick these, the APA did! But they are representative of the scientific literature. I know how you love science.
http://www.apa.org/practice/peff.html
Oh, and you have a very thin skin if you think that saying someone is an angry person is a swipe. It is an observation to the rest of us. "Small pricked moron" is a swipe, as is "latrine mouthed doofus." Surely someone like you JG, with your extensive knowledge base and life history, can tell the difference between an insult and an observation.
But can you disagree with a person in a calm, measured manner without insulting them?
That, I would like to see.
Tell me what you think about the scientific articles.
Trey
"Why? I sense you don't really care if the IAT has validity."
Sorry pal, could you post that again, I could not read the post for the loud sound of a chicken clucking.
The honest truth is I think you are lying about the IAT reliability and validity. I could not find it, if you can, I will eat my words. So give it a try, just think how cool it would feel to have me appologize for calling you a fraud.
Because Miles, I think you are lying about the IAT data. Make me eat my words.
Trey
Oh Miles, as you are looking for the articles, please read this one.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1114208
The article says that the various forms of the IAT procedure depend upon the paired stiumli having a strong negative correlation. This means, for the IAT to work in terms of racial terms, the person taking it would have to favor one race over another. If their is no negative correlation, an inherent assumption of the IAT process (not just the race version of the IAT,) then the IAT produces invalid data.
But then you read that already I guess.
Trey
JG wrote: "And in other news, research financed and supervised by Nationwide Insurance Company says that you definitely have too little insurance."
Not really. Most of the outcome literature is done by meta-analysis. It is too complicated for me to totally understand the math, but they use several hundred previous research studies looking for an effect size which compares the effectiveness of the intervention with placebo or waiting list. Most of the meta-analysis gives psychotherapy an effect size of over .70 which is about as much as medical treatment.
I am sure that this is raised a bit by treatment of anxiety related disorders which are really pretty straightforward, and depression treatment which is also usually pretty successful. None of it is tarrot card reading, just teaching the patient about what the scientific literature says about how to reduce anxiety and combat depression.
But why are you so invested in calling someone you never met a fraud? That is really interesting to me. You can see by now that I am not fazed by your insults, and that I just keep responding to the things you say that are worthy of discussion. I do not see how you maintain such venom for some guy on the internet.
It would be one thing if I insulted you the way you insult me, that would make sense. But that I so rarely insult you, and you maintain such anger must be exhausting.
What do you hope I will do in reaction to your insults? Shut up? Not likely, I have been on this blog for years. Do you think it will hurt me? I would have to know you or respect you for that to happen. I do respect some of your points, I always address those. But there is nothing to respect about the seemingly endless insults. They make you seem like a cartoon character to me: Angry Man! Or Captain Furious!
I had hoped that by responding to your logical points we could some day have a discussion, but I am losing that hope. OK, it is kind of fun that it pissed you off when I reponded to your insults with kindness, so sue me!
But really, why so angry? Why waste your energy with me? What are you really so mad about? Did something horrible happen to you at the hands of a psychologist? If so, I am sorry, honestly and truly sorry, but it was not me. I think the rest of us can see that it was not me. They see the contrast between the emotional tone of our posts. Well, not the other people that enjoy insulting me obviously! But I think you could focus your anger toward someone who actually hurt you, someone you actually met.
If I said something that was painful, please confront me about that specifically. I am open to hearing when I have been hurtful. But think about it. Your bloodpressure will thank you.
Trey
thankssss....for all
A group of psychologists have been helping a friend of mine who was suicidal 3 months ago. My friend is doing much better now and has received his diagnosis. For the first time in 20 years he seems to have 2 feet on the ground, has stopped self-medicating, committing petty crimes and is moving forward positively. Don't think for a minute that the psychology profession is worthless, because it isn't.
Hi Cham,
I absolutely agree with you! Psychology is a fascinating discipline--that's why I so enjoy learning about it. But it's also important to be able to criticize when there are disciplinary problems. Those are the issues I'm trying to bring to the fore.
Barb
Oakley isn't even a psychologist
Psychology is an intellectual endeavor open to the rational discussion of people on the outside; psychology must demonstrate the validity and truth of its reasoning.
someone was mentioning how conservatives have a hard time projecting cool, like apple yanking on microsoft which were great ads, no question. Sadly my experience is that most conservatives don't know clearly why they are so. Partly i suspect is that government & social causes aren't our religion for one. Another might be because we have conceded important parts of the argument unknowingly and wrongly leaving conservatives oft a bit confused as deer in headlights, unfortunately. And libs most oft argue emotions and with sarcastic ridicule with no link to facts as facts, such that conservatives are politely taken aback on their heels by the rudeness, not understanding or wanting to match the rudeness or how to work with such a utter lack of logic. That is my experience.... and memory as i loved being a liberal in college after growing up a conservative, before a real job and reading ayn rand saved me back to my senses in the real world.
That said.. most important i think is that we take this ground back just as microsoft has been working at. Do it in humor and state the obvious ... to these 'nanny staters' ...psychologically wanting to return to the womb by the looks of it.... may they get their wish, but leave us out of it.
Psychology is fascinating in analyzing how people react and come to think/act in the way that they do, as i was fascinated by barb's observation of examples of people simply being unable to hear you, hear your questions of them, particularly pointed, confrontative questioning of behavior. I have at times experienced this same phenomena and been astounded as these persons seemed suddenly just not there at all present, and unable to hear but just blank. Perhaps this was less purposeful as i had at the time thought, but a deeper psychosis of being unable to take in such conflict to how they see themselves, so much so that they simply can't take it in to the point they can't hear. This i have to think borders in a lostness to evil or some such construct. I am glad to have heard her bring this observation up, as an insight for my own experience with this, thanks barb!
Inability to focus on something of a critical nature is really an interesting phenomenon. Recent neuroscience is revealing much more along these lines that I'm weaving into my next book.
A closely related phenomenon can have an up side to it, though. Sometimes people will try to draw you off topic in their arguments. It's important to not allow these off topic issues to get your focus or attention. So the inhibiting ability in focus is important sometimes.
to suggest that the voting population of one political party is mentally ill is a difficult idea to approach.
one would have to go on a case-by-case basis.
an indoctrinated person will exhibit all sorts of dissociated behaviours. deafness, illogic, behaviour not in thier own best interest.
people who`s family members have been drawn into a cult will report that thier loved one acts in these ways.
seemingly in a trance.
Post a Comment
<< Home