Thoughts on the proposed Minnesota Guidelines for neuropsych training?

[Fan_of_Meehl]

Minnesota Conference readings are a little shaky on science to say the least:

Goghari (2022)


“Inclusive Science and Knowledge Traditions

Like all ways of knowing, psychological knowledge is produced in a sociopolitical context; however, this context is largely unacknowledged in our training. It should be noted that both Western and non-Western knowledge traditions include many ways of knowing, and the emphasis on different elements is a matter of degree rather than dichotomous; it is important to teach trainees about these varied epistemological approaches. Scientific clinical psychology has historically been rooted in European positivist and quantitative ways of knowing—specifically, notions of science that favour analytical, reductionist methods, in contrast to other knowledge tradition systems that may give greater weight to intuitive and holistic approaches. Of importance, whereas the science traditions that undergird clinical psychology emphasize materialist, objective, and quantitative concerns, many other knowledge traditions place a greater value on spiritual, subjective, and qualitative matters, and set no firm boundary between the empirical and sacred realms (Nakashima & Roué, 2002).

…

Most clinical psychologists (myself included) do not understand and are not taught about the positivist philosophies that underlie our discipline’s conceptualization of knowledge. But serving our diverse clinical clientele in a competent manner requires us to have a basic understanding of the assumptions, strengths, and weaknesses of both our own scientific models and of other models of knowing. Additionally, training our students to appreciate different knowledge systems and to be capable of conversing with people who represent diverse ways of knowing will prepare our future practitioners to be better critical thinkers and global citizens. In presenting the founding and history of this discipline, clinical psychology programmes need to push beyond the typical enumeration of Western “great men and great ideas” (Furumoto, 2003), and foreground the histories of women, racialized individuals, as well as other underrepresented groups. To assert that clients with different, non-Western ways of understanding their reality are incorrect, or to require that they interpret the world through a specifically Western cultural lens, is not only harmful and misguided, but fails to recognize the inadequacy of focusing selectively on prominent Western ways of knowing.”


Hmmm. I’ve seen this stuff on Western science and “ways of knowing” somewhere else… Oh wait, it’s from the shaky-on-science Objectives on the MNC website:

“It (Neuropsychology) is inherently biased in the western perspective in which it was developed, and it utilizes many methods that are based on narrow, highly selective samples derived from decades-old assessment and intervention strategies. …CN currently requires paradigmatic changes in ways of conceptualizing, knowing and doing science, training, and practice to become more internally and externally valid, equitable, and just…More broadly, there is a need for CN to recognize, revise, and repair structures, systems, and values that have rewarded and privileged certain ways of knowing and excluded and disregarded diverse perspectives and experiences.”

Here's the UNBELIEVABLE irony in all of this...

The folks who are, currently, denigrating the traditional epistemological traditions in the philosophy of science and championing the 'other ways of knowing' that "place a greater value on spiritual, subjective, and qualitative matters, and set no firm boundary between the empirical and sacred realms" are--without a doubt--of a liberal/progressive and secular 'sociopolitical' persuasion and who also have always actively denounced traditional spiritual/religious approaches to life.

Philip Kitcher's magnificent essay, 'Believing Where We Cannot Prove' is a must read for anyone engaging in serious conversations about understanding the critical distinction between these two epistemological traditions. Funnily enough, these modern-day progressive saints appear to be donning the epistemological garb of the Creationists whom Kitcher criticizes:

https://joelvelasco.net/teaching/hum9/kitcher82-chap2believing.pdf

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[DynamicDidactic]

Okay. So regarding...

..."those European positivist and quantitative ways of knowing"
(probably referring to a number of strands of thought in the philosophy of science in the early 20th century such as positivism (aka logical positivism, logical empiricism, verificationism/falsificationism, hypothetico-deductive reasoning, empirical tests of theories/hypotheses (listening to the data), emphasis on quantification and statistical/mathematical analysis, the operational character of scientific concepts (operationism), etc.)

umm...

..."those European positivist and quantitative ways of knowing" are largely responsible for the incredibly rapid advances in the natural sciences (physics, chemistry, biology) from around the early 20th century through the remainder of the 20th century. Some of it had tendrils all the way back to Francis Bacon and Auguste Compte but things really didn't get fleshed out in the modern 'philosophy of science' (and begin to be widely adopted by scientists) until around the early-mid 20th century (any book or course on the philosophy of science proper may be referenced--or any history book, for that matter). The entire world (including Europe) had been stalled out (in terms of real progress in the natural sciences) for hundreds of years (even millennia) while it was honoring all the "many other knowledge traditions [that] place a greater value on spiritual, subjective, and qualitative matters, and set no firm boundary between the empirical and sacred realms."

Do you enjoy the fruits of refrigeration, microwave ovens, modern pharmaceuticals that treat horrific, deadly diseases, modern obstetrics/gynecology (and safe childbirth and dramatically lowered infant mortality rates), computers, iPhones and posting political philosophy (and/or your derrier) on social media?

Thank a 'European positivist' (and their 'ways of knowing').

Ideas are tools, and some are superior to others in terms of getting results in the natural world. From a 'ways of knowing' (epistemological) perspective:

astronomy is superior to astrology (OBJECTIVELY SO...not just 'sociopolitically' and not arbitrarily)

chemistry is superior to alchemy (OBJECTIVELY SO...not just 'sociopolitically' and not arbitrarily)

biology is superior to vitalism (OBJECTIVELY SO...not just 'sociopolitically' and not arbitrarily)

Anyone who would deny the significance of the difference in technological achievement between, say (a) the erection of a Temple to Apollo in ancient Greece; and (b) the Apollo missions to the moon...we traveled to and set foot on the moon--I just don't know what to say to that.

To frame these perspectives as somehow arbitrary and merely 'sociopolitically rooted' is disingenuous (or ignorant) in the extreme.

Are professional neuropsychologists now--for political correctness' sake--on the verge of putting in writing that they don't believe that, say,

neuropsychology is superior to phrenology, mesmerism, spiritualism (OBJECTIVELY SO...not just 'sociopolitically' and not arbitrarily)???

Should we replace objective testing (and statistical analysis of neuropsychological performance), neurology, biochemistry, advanced imaging techniques with...what? Phrenological analysis? Jungian analysis? Focus groups? Ouija boards? Nordic runestones and chicken bones?

Really???

This is just so incredibly sad (but fascinating) to witness. The madness of it, I mean. Like, on a mass scale.

To put it into psychology, without the empiricist/positivist/or whatever closely aligned philosophical perspective we also:
1. Would likely continue to have lead in our paint
2. Allow intellectually disabled individuals to go off to war or be executed
3. Maybe still believe in a wandering uterus
4. To assume all mental health problems are related to a not measurable and not testable unconscious mind

I can easily agree that qualitative research methods can be helpful alongside quantitative methods. I can agree that often cultural difference are minimized at the early stages of exploring most research topics. But the idea of getting away from more objective methods of "knowing" to more subjective methods of "knowing" is somehow better is a bit bonkers. This is akin to saying that supernatural explanation for human phenomena are better than natural explanation.

Though, how much of this perspective is meant to change the actual methods of assessment and treatment in neuropsych is still unclear to me. I agree that teaching history and systems that outlines a clear philosophical roadmap for how the field got here is important. I agree that underscoring the current cross cultural limitations is important. To train future neuropsychologists to abandon positivist/empiricist methodologies will likely lead to more harm than benefit.

 

[PsyDr]

To put it into psychology, without the empiricist/positivist/or whatever closely aligned philosophical perspective we also:
1. Would likely continue to have lead in our paint
2. Allow intellectually disabled individuals to go off to war or be executed
3. Maybe still believe in a wandering uterus
4. To assume all mental health problems are related to a not measurable and not testable unconscious mind

I can easily agree that qualitative research methods can be helpful alongside quantitative methods. I can agree that often cultural difference are minimized at the early stages of exploring most research topics. But the idea of getting away from more objective methods of "knowing" to more subjective methods of "knowing" is somehow better is a bit bonkers. This is akin to saying that supernatural explanation for human phenomena are better than natural explanation.

Though, how much of this perspective is meant to change the actual methods of assessment and treatment in neuropsych is still unclear to me. I agree that teaching history and systems that outlines a clear philosophical roadmap for how the field got here is important. I agree that underscoring the current cross cultural limitations is important. To train future neuropsychologists to abandon positivist/empiricist methodologies will likely lead to more harm than benefit.

IMO, tests are simply a tool that psychologists interpret. End of day, the interpretation is based upon a qualitative analysis. It’s not substantially different than how a physician comes to a conclusion based upon his/her interpretation of history, physical exam, and labs. If everything was a pure numbers game, the profession can be automated, and we lose our job.

In neuropsychology, this is the signs vs measurement. There are some things that don’t need measurement, and some things that are obvious. If you read the old Reitan manuals, he would put a hemiplegic person in front of the TPT, just let them fail for 5 minutes, and then say that score means they’re hemiplegic. I don’t think the tests were really necessary.

*This does not mean we should not use better and better quantitative tools, or act like some uneducated person from the Alabama part of Congo has better ideas than the scientists at CDC, or that training standard should be whatever we want.

 

[Sanman]

In neuropsychology, this is the signs vs measurement. There are some things that don’t need measurement, and some things that are obvious. If you read the old Reitan manuals, he would put a hemiplegic person in front of the TPT, just let them fail for 5 minutes, and then say that score means they’re hemiplegic. I don’t think the tests were really necessary.

The man was preparing for an RVU based world.

 

[deleted1173749]

When someone pointed out that the progressive/woke/radical Cultural Neuropsychology Council ("dedicated to transforming neuropsychology by centering antiracism, inclusion, equity, diversity, access, and safety") was disproportionately represented throughout the Minnesota Conference, the President of AACN just responded by basically saying that just happened by accident. A lot of people are active in multiple neuropsych organizations, so it just kind of happened.

And the facts:

From the MNC Planning Commission minutes on 11/15/21 (Summary of Planning Commission Meetings – Minnesota Conference):


“Conference Steering Committee: CPP (Conference Program and Process Subcommittee) proposed a conference Steering Committee and after discussion the following motion was presented:

“A conference Steering Committee will be selected by the Commission, whose purpose is to oversee the activities of the conference and monitor progress of achieving its aims. The Steering Committee will consist of seven members, none of whom are voting delegates. Four members include the President (or designee as provided by the organization) of American Board of Clinical Neuropsychology (ABCN), American Board of Professional Neuropsychology (ABN), Association for Internship Training in Clinical Neuropsychology (AITCN), and Association of Postdoctoral Programs in Clinical Neuropsychology (APPCN). Three members will be selected by the Cultural Neuropsychology Council (CNC), at least one with familiarity with training and one with familiarity with board certification. The Treasurer will serve as an ex-officio member of the Steering Committee.”

And the treasurer was part of the Cultural Neuropsychology Council, making that 4 of 8 steering committee members. They gave the radical group more steering committee seats than any other org. It was by design, not accident.

The DEI stuff was baked into the cake from the outset.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

When someone pointed out that the progressive/woke/radical Cultural Neuropsychology Council ("dedicated to transforming neuropsychology by centering antiracism, inclusion, equity, diversity, access, and safety") was disproportionately represented throughout the Minnesota Conference, the President of AACN just responded by basically saying that just happened by accident. A lot of people are active in multiple neuropsych organizations, so it just kind of happened.

And the facts:

From the MNC Planning Commission minutes on 11/15/21 (Summary of Planning Commission Meetings – Minnesota Conference):


“Conference Steering Committee: CPP (Conference Program and Process Subcommittee) proposed a conference Steering Committee and after discussion the following motion was presented:

“A conference Steering Committee will be selected by the Commission, whose purpose is to oversee the activities of the conference and monitor progress of achieving its aims. The Steering Committee will consist of seven members, none of whom are voting delegates. Four members include the President (or designee as provided by the organization) of American Board of Clinical Neuropsychology (ABCN), American Board of Professional Neuropsychology (ABN), Association for Internship Training in Clinical Neuropsychology (AITCN), and Association of Postdoctoral Programs in Clinical Neuropsychology (APPCN). Three members will be selected by the Cultural Neuropsychology Council (CNC), at least one with familiarity with training and one with familiarity with board certification. The Treasurer will serve as an ex-officio member of the Steering Committee.”

And the treasurer was part of the Cultural Neuropsychology Council, making that 4 of 8 steering committee members. They gave the radical group more steering committee seats than any other org. It was by design, not accident.

The DEI stuff was baked into the cake from the outset.

Sounds pretty non-random and strategic.

 

[deleted1173749]

The disconcerting part is that multiple members of leadership at AACN and ABCN must know the AACN president's statement about the CNC was inaccurate. Much of the leadership served on the MNC steering committee or on the planning commission.

But the AACN/ABCN leadership did nothing to correct the misinformation. We are talking about a past president of ABCN, president-elect of ABCN, and former president-elect of AACN who were all on both the planning commission and steering committee.

 

[WisNeuro]

Well, we will see what comes of the next iteration of the guidelines. But, the realistic/pessimistic thinks that we'll see a document largely unchanged from the original that does little to quell the concerns. Particularly given the uneven and one-sided heavy-handed way that things have been handled thus far.

 

[Sanman]

Well, we will see what comes of the next iteration of the guidelines. But, the realistic/pessimistic thinks that we'll see a document largely unchanged from the original that does little to quell the concerns. Particularly given the uneven and one-sided heavy-handed way that things have been handled thus far.

And this is how psychology continues its slow march into irrelevancy. What we really need to do is have another group break off because they don't agree, start their own body, have their own conference, and produce a third set of guidelines. Psychology likes to do that.

 

[WisNeuro]

And this is how psychology continues its slow march into irrelevancy. What we really need to do is have another group break off because they don't agree, start their own body, have their own conference, and produce a third set of guidelines. Psychology likes to do that.

In general, I've just pulled my time and money back from many of these organizations and carefully curated how I spend both on guild/practice issues. Having my state senator as a neighbor for years certainly helps.

 

[Sanman]

In general, I've just pulled my time and money back from many of these organizations and carefully curated how I spend both on guild/practice issues. Having my state senator as a neighbor for years certainly helps.

You sure, I am thinking of starting the ABCCP - The American Board of Cynical Clinical Psychologists. All specialties welcome.

 

[WisNeuro]

You sure, I am thinking of starting the ABCCP - The American Board of Cynical Clinical Psychologists. All specialties welcome.

Can I head up the "**** You and Your Pseudoscience" Division of this organization?

 

[deleted1173749]

Can I head up the Credentials piece?

Rule #1 - You have to earn your place through actual achievement and experience, not based on your identity and the needs of society.
Rule #2 - There are no other rules.

In contrast, check this out from the Minnesota Conference recommended readings:

Goghari, Reimagining Clinical Psychology (2022)

"Most clinical programmes also currently select students based largely on research aptitude as opposed to a holistic view of their suitability for both research and clinical training. In other words, programmes typically ask which candidates are most meritorious for a research career—a criterion that depends heavily upon candidates’ undergraduate research experience, often in an unpaid or underpaid capacity, above and beyond, their academic programme. But the question that should be asked is who the most meritorious candidates are according to the needs of our society—which would suggest that a more holistic approach to candidate assessment should be taken. If programmes focused also on clinical aptitude and societal need in terms of providing health care for underserved groups, then applicants’ life experience and identity would become much more important considerations in relation to their future work with a diverse public.”

 

[PsyDr]

Fun fact: the publication date of the MNG was established BEFORE the guidelines were written…

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

Can I head up the Credentials piece?

Rule #1 - You have to earn your place through actual achievement and experience, not based on your identity and the needs of society.
Rule #2 - There are no other rules.

In contrast, check this out from the Minnesota Conference recommended readings:

Goghari, Reimagining Clinical Psychology (2022)

"Most clinical programmes also currently select students based largely on research aptitude as opposed to a holistic view of their suitability for both research and clinical training. In other words, programmes typically ask which candidates are most meritorious for a research career—a criterion that depends heavily upon candidates’ undergraduate research experience, often in an unpaid or underpaid capacity, above and beyond, their academic programme. But the question that should be asked is who the most meritorious candidates are according to the needs of our society—which would suggest that a more holistic approach to candidate assessment should be taken. If programmes focused also on clinical aptitude and societal need in terms of providing health care for underserved groups, then applicants’ life experience and identity would become much more important considerations in relation to their future work with a diverse public.”

"Reimagining Clinical Psychology"

'Reimagining,' indeed.

God help us.

'What if, instead of focusing on competence and merit, we became narcissistic and delusional, considering ourselves to be Gods whose role it is to 'reshape all of society' instead of mere mortals whose job it is to focus on training the next generation of competent clinical psychologists to help individuals get better?'

 

[deleted1173749]

In case you thought lowering standards only applied to which candidates to accept, they also want to lower the quality of research.

From Adams & Miller, 2021 (recommended MNC reading):

“Reassess and adjust the measuring rod of what counts as a rigorous study. Prioritizing research on mechanisms of mental-health disparities will require adjusting or reimagining the measuring rod of what “counts” as rigorous science. Note that we specifically do not mean “lowering the bar.” We have outlined, in this article, examples of methodologically strong studies that still have room for improvement. Rather, we encourage editorial boards to consider that rigorous studies on mental-health disparities may not look like other studies published in the journal not considering mental-health disparities. For example, it may not be possible to have a sample size of several hundred or thousand, depending on the group under investigation. It may not make sense to have a comparison group when the question is about the strength of the association between internalized homophobia, experiences of discrimination, and psychopathology symptoms.”

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

In case you thought lowering standards only applied to which candidates to accept, they also want to lower the quality of research.

From Adams & Miller, 2021 (recommended MNC reading):

“Reassess and adjust the measuring rod of what counts as a rigorous study. Prioritizing research on mechanisms of mental-health disparities will require adjusting or reimagining the measuring rod of what “counts” as rigorous science. Note that we specifically do not mean “lowering the bar.” We have outlined, in this article, examples of methodologically strong studies that still have room for improvement. Rather, we encourage editorial boards to consider that rigorous studies on mental-health disparities may not look like other studies published in the journal not considering mental-health disparities. For example, it may not be possible to have a sample size of several hundred or thousand, depending on the group under investigation. It may not make sense to have a comparison group when the question is about the strength of the association between internalized homophobia, experiences of discrimination, and psychopathology symptoms.”

Different rules for different people. Arbitrarily. That sure sounds familiar.

What a clever strategy. Pre-immunization of their shoddy research from all possible methodological critique.

The fundamental POINT of adopting a scientific approach (and the associated statistics and methodology) is that you're not picking favorites prior to empirical testing of theories. If you're just going to, a priori, 'excuse' certain theories from rigorous analysis while continuing to have methodological standards for research from other theoretical origins then you're not doing 'science' so there's no point in pretending that you're pretending to take a scientific approach.

People who are genuinely interested in taking a scientific approach to test their own theories don't go out of their way to immunize their theories from methodological (or other) critique. They actually vigorously test their own theories and--to the extent that they survive attempts at falsification--they become increasingly corroborated as a result of passing rigorous empirical tests.

There is some really slick sociopathic 'sleight-of-hand' going on here.

It's one thing to say (as many researchers have to do) that 'studying our phenomena is difficult to do in line with prevailing methodological and scientific standards for x, y, or z specific reasons...therefore, we must temper our conclusions and confidence in our findings accordingly.' That's fair and that's fair play.

What is utterly ridiculous is to just declare that you can go ahead and make firm conclusions in your area of study (despite poor methodology) just...because. Because if you don't let us get away with this (since we're trying to 'save the world' and right the wrongs of history) then you're a {insert ad hominem attack}? Because, compared to other researchers from other theoretical positions, OUR mission to validate OUR theories is somehow inherently morally superior? Gods get to make their own rules. Very slick, but it's not a new scam.

 

[deleted1173749]

I figure I might as well dump a few more of my favorite quotes from the MNC reading:

3 quotes from Diaz-Santos et al., chapter in Farzin Irani book

“Neuropsychology is political.” (Suarez, 2021) This is at the top of the chapter.

"However, as a predominantly white, gendered-binary, Catholic, middle-high class, monolingual, highly educated, and able-centered discipline, neuropsychology continues to rely on largely monolingual, mono-cultural neuropsychological assessment strategies and providers, which is likely to make it irrelevant in the healthcare marketplace by the year 2050 (e.g., Relevance 2050 Initiative of the American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology22)."

“If the specialty of clinical neuropsychology would like to affect real, impactful, and lasting change, it will need to consider the culture of its own field. As discussed earlier, neuropsychology has taken on the mainstream culture of the academic system in which it is embedded. If we take a look at the history of academia, we will see that the culture of universities was inherited from European universities and was based on hierarchies, elitism, and exclusion.50 The United States, like other countries such as New Zealand, then superimposed their own pioneering culture onto this inherited culture and added individualism, toughness, and physical prowess.50 These are characteristics of a patriarchal society, where senior-level males have dominion over junior-level males and are allied by the descent in the male line.51 This culture and system maintains racism, sexism, prejudice, and oppression, which is harming our colleagues, students, and patients/clients. One alternative structure for the field would be to transition to a matriarchal culture that is founded on an egalitarian system, as opposed to a hierarchy, where cooperation, collaboration, community, collectivism, and nurturing are paramount values.52”

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

I figure I might as well dump a few more of my favorite quotes from the MNC reading:

3 quotes from Diaz-Santos et al., chapter in Farzin Irani book

“Neuropsychology is political.” (Suarez, 2021) This is at the top of the chapter.

"However, as a predominantly white, gendered-binary, Catholic, middle-high class, monolingual, highly educated, and able-centered discipline, neuropsychology continues to rely on largely monolingual, mono-cultural neuropsychological assessment strategies and providers, which is likely to make it irrelevant in the healthcare marketplace by the year 2050 (e.g., Relevance 2050 Initiative of the American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology22)."

“If the specialty of clinical neuropsychology would like to affect real, impactful, and lasting change, it will need to consider the culture of its own field. As discussed earlier, neuropsychology has taken on the mainstream culture of the academic system in which it is embedded. If we take a look at the history of academia, we will see that the culture of universities was inherited from European universities and was based on hierarchies, elitism, and exclusion.50 The United States, like other countries such as New Zealand, then superimposed their own pioneering culture onto this inherited culture and added individualism, toughness, and physical prowess.50 These are characteristics of a patriarchal society, where senior-level males have dominion over junior-level males and are allied by the descent in the male line.51 This culture and system maintains racism, sexism, prejudice, and oppression, which is harming our colleagues, students, and patients/clients. One alternative structure for the field would be to transition to a matriarchal culture that is founded on an egalitarian system, as opposed to a hierarchy, where cooperation, collaboration, community, collectivism, and nurturing are paramount values.52”

I can't retire soon enough. Gonna be an interesting decade.

I think we could probably use a little bit more 'individualism, toughness, and physical prowess' and I don't think that any of these qualities in an individual are inherently 'toxic.'

 

[WisNeuro]

I can't retire soon enough. Gonna be an interesting decade.

I think we could probably use a little bit more 'individualism, toughness, and physical prowess' and I don't think that any of these qualities in an individual are inherently 'toxic.'

I don't know, the current younger millennials and Gen Z are totally healthy given the sheer number of memes related to the crippling anxiety involved in making a voice phone call, or asking waitstaff for extra ketchup

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

I figure I might as well dump a few more of my favorite quotes from the MNC reading:

3 quotes from Diaz-Santos et al., chapter in Farzin Irani book

“Neuropsychology is political.” (Suarez, 2021) This is at the top of the chapter.

"However, as a predominantly white, gendered-binary, Catholic, middle-high class, monolingual, highly educated, and able-centered discipline, neuropsychology continues to rely on largely monolingual, mono-cultural neuropsychological assessment strategies and providers, which is likely to make it irrelevant in the healthcare marketplace by the year 2050 (e.g., Relevance 2050 Initiative of the American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology22)."

“If the specialty of clinical neuropsychology would like to affect real, impactful, and lasting change, it will need to consider the culture of its own field. As discussed earlier, neuropsychology has taken on the mainstream culture of the academic system in which it is embedded. If we take a look at the history of academia, we will see that the culture of universities was inherited from European universities and was based on hierarchies, elitism, and exclusion.50 The United States, like other countries such as New Zealand, then superimposed their own pioneering culture onto this inherited culture and added individualism, toughness, and physical prowess.50 These are characteristics of a patriarchal society, where senior-level males have dominion over junior-level males and are allied by the descent in the male line.51 This culture and system maintains racism, sexism, prejudice, and oppression, which is harming our colleagues, students, and patients/clients. One alternative structure for the field would be to transition to a matriarchal culture that is founded on an egalitarian system, as opposed to a hierarchy, where cooperation, collaboration, community, collectivism, and nurturing are paramount values.52”

Is neuropsychology actually predominantly Catholic, though? And is that supposed to be a 'bad' thing?

Norse pantheon worshipers really need to represent.

"Middle-high class." So, are we talking about how current neuropsychologists grew up (like, 'my dad was a plumber, but did pretty well') or are they actually expecting fully grown, established neuropsychologists with years of experience to be poor for 'diversity's' sake?

 

[WisNeuro]

Is neuropsychology actually predominantly Catholic, though? And is that supposed to be a 'bad' thing?

Norse pantheon worshipers really need to represent.

"Middle-high class." So, are we talking about how current neuropsychologists grew up (like, 'my dad was a plumber, but did pretty well') or are they actually expecting fully grown, established neuropsychologists with years of experience to be poor for 'diversity's' sake?

I know a lot of neuropsychologists. I can think of one lapsed Catholic, a LOT of Agnostics/Atheists, and a few that I have no idea about. I imagine the Catholic bit just sounded good, so they threw it in there regardless of any actual data. Kind of the modus operandi.

 

[deleted1173749]

Is neuropsychology actually predominantly Catholic, though? And is that supposed to be a 'bad' thing?

Norse pantheon worshipers really need to represent.

"Middle-high class." So, are we talking about how current neuropsychologists grew up (like, 'my dad was a plumber, but did pretty well') or are they actually expecting fully grown, established neuropsychologists with years of experience to be poor for 'diversity's' sake?

The Catholic piece is just bizarre, but it is actually in the article. I double checked before posting just because it is so out there.

 

[deleted1173749]

Now let’s get to some MNC SCIENCE!

From Fujii’s 2023 paper on Intersectionality, which lays out the scientific case for progressivism more than any other of the recommended MNC readings. To sum up, he says that the cultural value of collectivism co-evolved with a single gene, the serotonin transporter gene, and that collectivism serves both an antipathogen and antipsychopathologic function. This sounds like pseudoscience in the service of an anti-Western (anti-individualistic) narrative. Do single genes really co-evolve with abstract ideas like collectivism?

“Thus, a primary goal of cultural neuroscience research is identifying specific cultural and genetic traits that support adaptive behaviors and mold psychological and neural architectures. An example is the co-evolution of the cultural value of collectivism with the serotonin transporter gene (SLC6A4) to produce adaptive behaviors (Chiao & Blizinsky, 2010). Theoretically, collectivist values are more likely to develop in nations facing environmental pressures such as a long history of pathogen exposure resulting in infectious diseases. In these countries, an increased preference for group members and reduced contact with persons outside the group would be a good strategy to reduce the potential transmission of diseases (Fincher, Thornhill, Murray, & Schaller, 2008). This hypothesis was supported by Chiao and Blizinski (2010) who found that people from collectivist nations in geographic regions with an increased prevalence of infectious diseases are more like to carry the short (S) versus long (L) allele of serotonin transporter gene 5HTTLPR associated with lower levels of anxiety and mood disorders. Thus, collectivism serves an antipathogen function, while genetic selection associated with this cultural value serves an antipsychopathologic function.”

 

[WisNeuro]

Well, the field is tilting ever more female. Goals?

Has been for a while. Psychology has been majority female for a long time. And, at least according to salary survey responses, neuropsych has been that way for some time as well.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

Has been for a while. Psychology has been majority female for a long time. And, at least according to salary survey responses, neuropsych has been that way for some time as well.

'Patriarchy by proxy,' then...fascinating.

 

[WisNeuro]

'Patriarchy by proxy,' then...fascinating.

CWS Data Tool: Demographics of the U.S. Psychology Workforce

This tool draws from the U.S. Census Bureau's American Community Survey (2000-2016) to provide a snapshot of the U.S. Psychology Workforce on race/ethnicity, age and disability status.

www.apa.org

 

[deleted1173749]

MNC SCIENCE!

Fujii, ECLECTIC paper (2018), on MNC reading list:

“The impact of a culture’s time conceptualization for neuropsychology is most evident on timed tests. There is growing evidence that norms for timed tests are highly culturally specific. For example, a comparison of neuropsychological test performances between demographically similar American and Russian samples found equivalent performances on all tests except for timed tests (Agranovich & Puente, 2007), while a subsequent study found that conception of time and experience with timed tests partially accounted for differences in performances (Agranovich, Panter, Puente, & Touradji, 2011). Further evidence for cultural influences on timed tests is the wide variability in Trailmaking times across different countries (Fernandez & Marcopulos, 2008) that is not mediated by intelligence (Fujii, 2016).”


Here are two of the abstracts cited by Dr. Fujii. Note that what is underlined in the abstracts does not support his claims or dramatically weakens his claims in the article. Specifically, the differences do not seem to relate to a “culture’s time conceptualization,” but to other more mundane factors we all know about – test procedure familiarity, sampling issues, and test administration differences.



The Culture of Time in Neuropsychological Assessment: Exploring the Effects of Culture-Specific Time Attitudes on Timed Test Performance in Russian and American Samples

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 May 2011

Anna V. Agranovich, A.T. Panter, Antonio E. Puente and Pegah Touradji

Abstract

Cultural differences in time attitudes and their effect on timed neuropsychological test performance were examined in matched non-clinical samples of 100 Russian and American adult volunteers using 8 tests that were previously reported to be relatively free of cultural bias: Color Trails Test (CTT); Ruff Figural Fluency Test (RFFT); Symbol Digit Modalities Test (SDMT); and Tower of London-Drexel Edition (ToLDx). A measure of time attitudes, the Culture of Time Inventory (COTI-33) was used to assess time attitudes potentially affecting time-limited testing. Americans significantly outscored Russians on CTT, SDMT, and ToLDx (p < .05) while differences in RFFT scores only approached statistical significance. Group differences also emerged in COTI-33 factor scores, which partially mediated differences in performance on CTT-1, SDMT, and ToLDx initiation time, but did not account for the effect of culture on CTT-2. Significant effect of culture was revealed in ratings of familiarity with testing procedures that was negatively related to CTT, ToLDx, and SDMT scores. Current findings indicated that attitudes toward time may influence results of time limited testing and suggested that individuals who lack familiarity with timed testing procedures tend to obtain lower scores on timed tests. (JINS, 2011, 17, 692–701)


Scand J Psychol,. 2008 Jun;49(3):239-46.


A comparison of normative data for the Trail Making Test from several countries: equivalence of norms and considerations for interpretation

Alberto L Fernández 1, Bernice A Marcopulos

Abstract

The Trail Making Test may not be equivalent across cultures, i.e., differences in the scores across different cultures may not reveal real differences in the ability of the subjects on the construct being measured. In order to assess this hypothesis, normative samples from ten different countries were compared. Age decade subgroups across samples were ranked based on mean time taken to complete each part of the task. Large Z scores differences were found between these samples when comparing the first with the second, and the last in the rank. These differences were significant even when age and education were comparable across samples. Following Van de Vijver & Tanzer (1997), several possible sources of bias were identified. Incomparability of samples and administration differences were the most likely factors accounting for differences. Because of the lack of validity studies in the countries considered, no firm conclusions could be obtained regarding construct bias. Although the TMT may be measuring visual scanning, psychomotor speed and mental flexibility, normative data from different countries and cultures are not equivalent which might lead to serious diagnostic errors.

 

[WisNeuro]

No doubt. Imagine if the religion under consideration were Jewish or Muslim. Think they type it or publish it?

Probably not. The sad part is, that many people agree with many of the aims of increasing diversity and reducing barriers to entry and such, but the proponents take things to the extreme and use terrible and/or misstated "data" to make claims with little to no empirical backing. Between that and the complete inability to undergo criticism and review of methods and data, a cornerstone of our field, leads many people who otherwise would be an ally, to disengage. It's hard to get on board a movement that wants to "save" the field by destroying the good along with the bad.

 

[WisNeuro]

AACN looks about as organized and competent as the GOP trying to elect a Speaker of the House at the moment. Just shut down the dedicated listserv for MNC related discussion after a pretty tame discussion.

 

[deleted1173749]

Criticism of DEI is verboten.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

Criticism of DEI is verboten.

The psychology of totalitarianism is in full bloom.

 

[deleted1173749]

The big name pro-DEI folks showed up yesterday to defend the DEI agenda because it was getting crushed. So they shut down the list and only allowed their narrative to get out. Their main arguments is that the science for DEI settled (yeah, right!) and that their hands are tied because APA is making them do it. Of course if they were really doing it because of APA, they could have said that months ago.

And they hired an organizational change consulting group to guide implementation of the guidelines that could hardly be more extreme. home | Arredondo Advisory Group

As said just above, this is what totalitarianism looks like.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

The big name pro-DEI folks showed up yesterday to defend the DEI agenda because it was getting crushed. So they shut down the list and only allowed their narrative to get out. Their main arguments is that the science for DEI settled (yeah, right!) and that their hands are tied because APA is making them do it. Of course if they were really doing it because of APA, they could have said that months ago.

And they hired an organizational change consulting group to guide implementation of the guidelines that could hardly be more extreme. home | Arredondo Advisory Group

As said just above, this is what totalitarianism looks like.

Evil/error has to bloom first before it fails. A story old as the hills. Nothing founded on quicksand is going to last. Just the way it is.

Their strongest authoritarian flex (shutting down discussion and debate) reveals the weakness of their position to anyone with any wisdom or discernment.

 

[WisNeuro]

At this point, I'm willing to withhold judgment until the revision. But, those board minutes do not speak well to the process or the actual conference itself.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

At this point, I'm willing to withhold judgment until the revision. But, those board minutes do not speak well to the process or the actual conference itself.

Makes sense.

I'd love to be shocked and have common sense take back psychology.

But I ain't holding my breath...I think the arrow has been shot into the air and it's just going to have to follow the arc all the way to the ground at this point.

Or, as the great Ron White said in one of his stand up routines,

{panicked airline passenger} "Hey man, if one of these engines fails...how far with the other one take us?"

{answer} "All the way to the scene of the crash."

 

[AcronymAllergy]

I'm also going to try to reserve judgment until we hear/see the revisions, but some of the responses haven't induced a lot of optimism.

 

[WisNeuro]

Settled? Wow. That’s what I’d call complete ideological capture.

I would say that the criticism that the argument is that the "science is settled" is somewhat simplifying and slightly mischaracterizing the arguments. To me, it seems more the case that when there is a criticism of part of something, someone will make an allusion to "there's empirical support for it." But, this is usually vague and seems to imply that DEI is a singular, unitary construct, as opposed to a collection of ideas and theories, some with more empirical support than others.

Unfortunately, the idea from the leadership and pro-original MNC document seems to be, you either accept all of it, or you are opposed to all of it, which is unfortunate given the nuances of a broad, multidimensional document. Leadership statements have appeared to be very one-sided and very critical of all of those who had any sort of problem with the original document. The listserv was one of the areas that could discuss some of the specific areas of concern, and I'm saddened that it was shut down with very little warning or thought, by a very tame discussion.

 

[WisNeuro]

Seems a foregone conclusion given the politics of it that it will be no different than the earlier iteration.

Given the discussion and choice of consultant group, I suspect that the DEI portion will be largely the same. I at least have hope that they will take the criticisms about the training pieces and other competencies and strengthen those areas. After that, we'll see what the vote looks like, unless they renege on that.

 

[Ollie123]

I'm not entirely sure what "The science for DEI is settled" would mean in this context. Is that actually what was said?

That cultural issues can impact the practice of psychology in meaningful ways and that outcomes improve by attending to that? First part - sure, I'll buy that is established. Latter part....maybe, but with enough nuance left to unpack we're decades (at least) away from it being settled?

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

I'm not entirely sure what "The science for DEI is settled" would mean in this context. Is that actually what was said?

That cultural issues can impact the practice of psychology in meaningful ways and that outcomes improve by attending to that? First part - sure, I'll buy that is established. Latter part....maybe, but with enough nuance left to unpack we're decades (at least) away from it being settled?

To me it looks like begging the question, which is a logical error/fallacy.

It's also a contradiction in terms, in a sense, I would argue. 'Science' = 'that which is 'settled''???

Science isn't about declaring 'it's settled.' Science is about continuing to posit and empirically test hypotheses that are logically derived from theoretical propositions and listening to the evidence even when you're not hearing what you want to hear.

The practice of science explicitly focuses on things that have yet to be settled. If it's 'been settled' then why is it a focus of present inquiry/testing?

People who talk like that, 'The science on X is settled,' don't really understand the philosophy and practice of 'science' and are basically enacting a religious drama masquerading as expertise.

 

[WisNeuro]

I'm not entirely sure what "The science for DEI is settled" would mean in this context. Is that actually what was said?

That cultural issues can impact the practice of psychology in meaningful ways and that outcomes improve by attending to that? First part - sure, I'll buy that is established. Latter part....maybe, but with enough nuance left to unpack we're decades (at least) away from it being settled?

I am not sure if the "science is settled" argument has been used. Or, at least I don't remember it. Rather, when someone has questioned a specific piece of something, it is usually answered with something to the effect of "It's good science" or "it has empirical support" and followed with telling the person that they should read APA's statements or go google articles themselves.

 

[Ollie123]

In that case I think the devil is in the details.

If it was something like the nonsensical "How can a test be biased?" or "I had it rough so white privilege doesn't exist" tropes we see from certain political groups, I don't blame folks for being rude/dismissive and telling someone on a NP listserv to basically go reread their intro textbook and try again. If it was "What does political activism have to do with the day-to-day practice of neuropsychology?" then "It has empirical support" is kind of nuts given it isn't even really an empirical question. My impression from the discussion here is that it was likely closer to the latter, but it is hard to know without seeing it.

Not my area, but really curious to see how this all shakes out...are we about to have another "field fracture" moment? Is half of neuropsych going to disavow the new guidelines?

 

[AcronymAllergy]

In that case I think the devil is in the details.

If it was something like the nonsensical "How can a test be biased?" or "I had it rough so white privilege doesn't exist" tropes we see from certain political groups, I don't blame folks for being rude/dismissive and telling someone on a NP listserv to basically go reread their intro textbook and try again. If it was "What does political activism have to do with the day-to-day practice of neuropsychology?" then "It has empirical support" is kind of nuts given it isn't even really an empirical question. My impression from the discussion here is that it was likely closer to the latter, but it is hard to know without seeing it.

Not my area, but really curious to see how this all shakes out...are we about to have another "field fracture" moment? Is half of neuropsych going to disavow the new guidelines?

My take of the discussion, broadly, is that it has been more of the latter than the former, and variations thereof.

I really don't know that I see a field fracture, particularly with respect to training programs. But who knows, maybe if things are just as divisive, it results in an APA vs. PCSAS type of split.

 

[WisNeuro]

In that case I think the devil is in the details.

If it was something like the nonsensical "How can a test be biased?" or "I had it rough so white privilege doesn't exist" tropes we see from certain political groups, I don't blame folks for being rude/dismissive and telling someone on a NP listserv to basically go reread their intro textbook and try again. If it was "What does political activism have to do with the day-to-day practice of neuropsychology?" then "It has empirical support" is kind of nuts given it isn't even really an empirical question. My impression from the discussion here is that it was likely closer to the latter, but it is hard to know without seeing it.

Not my area, but really curious to see how this all shakes out...are we about to have another "field fracture" moment? Is half of neuropsych going to disavow the new guidelines?

It is closer to this. Unfortunately there is a huge amount of mischaracterization. Namely, by criticizing any element of the guidelines or DEI, that you are against any and all diversity efforts and believe that racism does not exist. It's been surreal to see the vitriol and complete inability to even discuss this without resorting to personal attacks and name calling on a professional listserv.

 

[WisNeuro]

Should probably start censuring people for logical fallacies.

Well, they kind of have already, but they only applied it to people who hold certain opinions. Apparently a white woman calling a POC racist and to re-examine their lives wasn't enough for such an action.

 

[deleted1173749]

The disconcerting part is that multiple members of leadership at AACN and ABCN must know the AACN president's statement about the CNC was inaccurate. Much of the leadership served on the MNC steering committee or on the planning commission.

But the AACN/ABCN leadership did nothing to correct the misinformation. We are talking about a past president of ABCN, president-elect of ABCN, and former president-elect of AACN who were all on both the planning commission and steering committee.

Did you see that AACN finally addressed this inaccurate statement about the Cultural Neuropsychology Council by the AACN board president? There was never an open acknowledgement to the listserv that he put out false information. Instead, AACN put out a long info sheet with information on MNC. Buried within it was the following:

"Why are members of the Cultural Neuropsychology Council (CNC) heavily represented on the MNC Steering Committee?

The CNC is comprised of representatives from a number of neuropsychology organizations who are coordinating DEI-focused initiatives. As detailed on the MNC website, the MNC planning commission designed the MNC leadership structure to meet its mandate by soliciting recommendations from CNC for 3 of the 8 members of the MNC Steering Committee. In the end, the Steering Committee members and MNC delegates hold affiliations with many different neuropsychology organizations. For example, 6 of the 8 MNC Steering Committee members are also members of AACN and 4 of the 8 are also members of the CNC."

He was wrong. It was intentional to put an "anti-racist" group at the head of MNC.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

If they're trying to convince people that they don't have an agenda they're pushing, they're doing a very bad job of it.