APA Resignations

[R. Matey]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Agree, the data here is pretty unequivocal. In areas where we have pretty good empirical consensus about issues that are directly relevant to mental health, we should definitely be involved. We were deeply involved in our state organization at getting this done at the state level with conversion therapy. I do think APA needs to be choosy about what they pick to advocate on, in that it needs to be fairly empirically driven and directly relevant to psychology, which they have strayed from.

I concur though I would add there's also quite bit of creep on what's 'empirical.' Take this recent resolution, which stops short of calling for reparations for those 'experiencing collective, intergenerational trauma.' Though they seem to recognize that psychotherapy can alleviate symptoms of trauma (duh!), they also bring in a bunch of one-sided correlational policy literature to justify the need for an APA committee to explore reparations. My problem with APA making these kinds of recommendations is not so much that there's no science, it's more than it's poorly done science with obvious ulterior motives, often published in very friendly journals.

 

[neothanos]

I concur though I would add there's also quite bit of creep on what's 'empirical.' Take this recent resolution, which stops short of calling for reparations for those 'experiencing collective, intergenerational trauma.' Though they seem to recognize that psychotherapy can alleviate symptoms of trauma (duh!), they also bring in a bunch of one-sided correlational policy literature to justify the need for an APA committee to explore reparations. My problem with APA making these kinds of recommendations is not so much that there's no science, it's more than it's poorly done science with obvious ulterior motives, often published in very friendly journals.

Yes. And, this is the consequence of activists doing "research." They have their framing and discussion section written before they ever start a study.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

I concur though I would add there's also quite bit of creep on what's 'empirical.' Take this recent resolution, which stops short of calling for reparations for those 'experiencing collective, intergenerational trauma.' Though they seem to recognize that psychotherapy can alleviate symptoms of trauma (duh!), they also bring in a bunch of one-sided correlational policy literature to justify the need for an APA committee to explore reparations. My problem with APA making these kinds of recommendations is not so much that there's no science, it's more than it's poorly done science with obvious ulterior motives, often published in very friendly journals.

As I recall from my training, the term 'empirical' essentially just refers to evidence derived from direct sensory experience. "Seeing is believing" and "Straight from the horse's mouth (to count how many teeth the beast actually has rather than go on sparring through a priori philosophical claims)." It has definitely become an often overused and indiscriminantly employed 'invocation' (along with it's threadbare cousin, 'evidence-based') to serve the function of 'padding' one's argument ("agree with my argument...it's 'empirical'"). "It's empirically-supported" sometimes functions as a 'thought-terminating cliche' these days without further elaboration.

There's also the consideration that the (empirically-observed) data do not 'interpret themselves' and--since we are awash in data these days--the 'empirical' blocks and tinker toys can be artfully (or even Sophistically) cherry-picked, creatively assembled, and pointed to in order to make ANY argument that may be said to be 'empirical.'

That's why it's always important to remind ourselves when asking for 'the evidence' to support a position (or to make ours known) we make reference to the REASONING and evidence involved.

It's astonishing how many people you run into, say, in the VA system who appear to believe that this is an effective form of argumentation:

"I think we should do X...here's a study reference...it's 'empirical'...therefore, debate over...I win. So...do X."

That's naked authoritarianism and bordering on 'begging the question'...not a disciplined inquiry toward the truth.

But any attempt to engage in effective discussion/debate is seen as uncivilized behavior bordering on insubordination.

 

[borne_before]

I'm not sure condemning APA's partisan political stance, with an even more partisan and strawman building opposing political stance is the best way to say that APA should not make partisan political stances.

It my stance - at least it's not banal. At least it has some backbone.

 

[Sanman]

I concur though I would add there's also quite bit of creep on what's 'empirical.' Take this recent resolution, which stops short of calling for reparations for those 'experiencing collective, intergenerational trauma.' Though they seem to recognize that psychotherapy can alleviate symptoms of trauma (duh!), they also bring in a bunch of one-sided correlational policy literature to justify the need for an APA committee to explore reparations. My problem with APA making these kinds of recommendations is not so much that there's no science, it's more than it's poorly done science with obvious ulterior motives, often published in very friendly journals.

I imagine this will be as useful and effective as an APA committee to explore why CMS should pay us more money. At least some people in the APA offices will now score a nice catered lunch on our dime.

 

[msc545]

APA castigated Hamas but had nothing at all to say about the Israeli genocide. This was all they said:

"The heightened, unceasing conflict since the October 7, 2023 attacks by Hamas inside Israel threatens the human rights, life, liberty, physical and psychological health, and well-being of civilians in the Middle East."

 

[psych.meout]

It my stance - at least it's not banal. At least it has some backbone.

"Backbone" is one way to put it.

 

[futureapppsy2]

Who resigned?

Late last October, conveniently without any context, the outgoing APA president posted what read to me (and several of my personal colleagues) to be a rather anti-semitic statement that called to the surface several tropes against Jewish people; that they are manipulative, selfish, greedy, controlling, and living on stolen land. When she got called out on it, she backtracked and insisted that her statement wasn't about Israel but was instead about "decolonializing stolen African art" - after she had made a visit to a museum earlier that week. APA backed her up. It's my understanding that Jewish staff at APA felt powerless to address the issue, and were dealing with a lot of backchannel communication from members and non-members alike. So I'm not surprised to hear, in the context of this recent statement, that people might have decided to walk out.

Do you have a link to the text of this?

 

[neothanos]

APA castigated Hamas but had nothing at all to say about the Israeli genocide. This was all they said:

"The heightened, unceasing conflict since the October 7, 2023 attacks by Hamas inside Israel threatens the human rights, life, liberty, physical and psychological health, and well-being of civilians in the Middle East."

"The heightened, unceasing conflict since the October 7, 2023, including attacks by Hamas inside Israel, threatens the human rights, life, liberty, physical and psychological health, and well-being of civilians in the Middle East." It's just a poorly constructed sentence. I've edited it to make what I perceive to be their intent clearer.

"Further, military actions have disrupted access to resources needed to fulfill basic needs and destroyed critical infrastructure, including medical facilities, educational institutions, and cultural centers"

That is directed at Israel. Hamas doesn't really have a military nor are they capable of directly affecting infrastructure in Israel.

"The immediate and long-term harms from military conflict disproportionately impact vulnerable populations, such as children (Akbulut-Yuksel, 2014; APA, 2021b; APA, 2023b; Çelik, & Özpınar, 2017; Werner, 2012), women (Plümper & Neumayer, 2006), refugees (Melese et al., 2024), older adults (Kimhi et al., 2012), people with disabilities (Al-Masri & Serhan, 2024) and people living in impoverished conditions (Goodhand, 2003; Jordans et al., 2016)."

i.e., Palestinians are being hurt.

The immediate deleterious impacts of armed conflict on individuals have also been associated with significant long-term negative psychosocial outcomes that ripple out to families and communities and persist across generations

I.e., The bad things coming later are Israel's fault.

All interspersed with the missive to stop fighting.

What APA fails to appreciate in my opinion is that Palestinians largely support Hamas and would very much like to eliminate Israel's control in the area and Jewish presence. Hence, "From the river to the sea." That is a direct call for genocide. Israel is a small country and the only non-muslim lead state in the region. They are the hated minority. Further, this conflict has roots in the fall of the Ottoman Empire. There have been multiple wars that have resulted in the current configuration, stemming back to the Roman Empire. For APA to wade into this with "Hey guys, stop fighting," is beyond stupid.

It's interesting that they pick this particular conflict. Why not say, Syria, a civil war that has been ongoing since 2011? What about the elimination of non-muslims in Lebanon? Did APA forget that Hamas isn't the only terrorist organization nor country operating in Gaza? Gaza is a launching point via which Lebanon and Iran kill Jews and harass Israel. Most sanctioned human rights violator in the world by the UN today is Israel. Anyone think that's reasonable and not the consequence of antisemitism? People seem overly focused on Israel. One way to decrease violence in the region, if that's the goal, would be to stop giving billions of dollars to Iran.

 

[futureapppsy2]

Yes. And, this is the consequence of activists doing "research." They have their framing and discussion section written before they ever start a study.

I mean, this is true of most research, activism centric or not, in my experiences. Everyone comes in expecting to find things that already align with their beliefs on what is 'true" in the given area and assume research that doesn't align with that must have major flaws. It's part of the reason why so many studies get file drawed.

 

[smalltownpsych]

It my stance - at least it's not banal. At least it has some backbone.

As an individual, completely entitled to that opinion and other individuals are free to dispute. Unlike the APA, I appreciate that you didn’t disguise this as a psychological opinion or “fact” or state that the opinion was because of your expertise as a psychologist.

 

[psych.meout]

What APA fails to appreciate in my opinion is that Palestinians largely support Hamas and would very much like to eliminate Israel's control in the area and Jewish presence. Hence, "From the river to the sea." That is a direct call for genocide. Israel is a small country and the only non-muslim lead state in the region. They are the hated minority. Further, this conflict has roots in the fall of the Ottoman Empire. There have been multiple wars that have resulted in the current configuration, stemming back to the Roman Empire. For APA to wade into this with "Hey guys, stop fighting," is beyond stupid.

It is not a call for genocide.

It's interesting that they pick this particular conflict. Why not say, Syria, a civil war that has been ongoing since 2011? What about the elimination of non-muslims in Lebanon? Did APA forget that Hamas isn't the only terrorist organization nor country operating in Gaza? Gaza is a launching point via which Lebanon and Iran kill Jews and harass Israel. Most sanctioned human rights violator in the world by the UN today is Israel. Anyone think that's reasonable and not the consequence of antisemitism? People seem overly focused on Israel.

How many of those other conflicts are being fueled by US money and weapons?

 

[neothanos]

It is not a call for genocide.

Sure, just like, "Death to America," is just a slogan meant to indicate objection to US foreign policy. No violent intent at all.

 

[borne_before]

As an individual, completely entitled to that opinion and other individuals are free to dispute. Unlike the APA, I appreciate that you didn’t disguise this as a psychological opinion or “fact” or state that the opinion was because of your expertise as a psychologist.

You get it bro.

In this day and age, we don't need consensus statements. They always make me cringe.

It seems like such an argument from authority. I think consensus statements in any field actually undermine credibility.

If there was consensus, you wouldn't need a statement. No physicist group is like "here is our consensus on gravity. The consensus is that an apple falling from a tree will go down."

 

[psych.meout]

Sure, just like, "Death to America," is just a slogan meant to indicate objection to US foreign policy. No violent intent at all.

Well, one of those literally has "death" in it and the other doesn't....

 

[neothanos]

Well, one of those literally has "death" in it and the other doesn't....

It's implied. Plausible deniability.

 

[psych.meout]

It's implied. Plausible deniability.

Or maybe you're reading that strawman into it?

 

[neothanos]

Or maybe you're reading that strawman into it?

Or maybe many Lebanese, Iranians, and muslims living in Gaza believe that Israel shouldn't exist, refuse to say the word "Israel" (I've encountered this personally) and refer to Israelis as "colonizers" and to the "occupation" and mischaracterize the Gaza situation as "apartheid." Maybe, people in that region have been engaging in suicide bombings and missile attacks so frequently and consistently that Israel had to create a missile shield.

There's a longer discussion and history. But, from the ADL: You are being redirected...

“From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” is an antisemitic slogan commonly featured in anti-Israel campaigns and chanted at demonstrations.

This rallying cry has long been used by anti-Israel voices, including supporters of terrorist organizations such as Hamas and the PFLP, which seek Israel’s destruction through violent means. It is fundamentally a call for a Palestinian state extending from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, territory that includes the State of Israel, which would mean the dismantling of the Jewish state. It is an antisemitic charge denying the Jewish right to self-determination, including through the removal of Jews from their ancestral homeland."

 

[psych.meout]

Or maybe many Lebanese, Iranians, and muslims living in Gaza believe that Israel shouldn't exist,

That a country shouldn't exist =/= genocide. Otherwise, that same framework could be applied to Israelis and their supporters who are against a Palestinian state.

refuse to say the word "Israel" (I've encountered this personally) and refer to Israelis as "colonizers" and to the "occupation" and mischaracterize the Gaza situation as "apartheid."

Those aren't really "mischaracterizations" as much as they are accurate descriptions that you don't like.

Maybe, people in that region have been engaging in suicide bombings and missile attacks so frequently and consistently that Israel had to create a missile shield.

If only Palestinians had a missile shield, then maybe tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of them would still be alive.

There's a longer discussion and history. But, from the ADL: You are being redirected...

“From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” is an antisemitic slogan commonly featured in anti-Israel campaigns and chanted at demonstrations.

This rallying cry has long been used by anti-Israel voices, including supporters of terrorist organizations such as Hamas and the PFLP, which seek Israel’s destruction through violent means. It is fundamentally a call for a Palestinian state extending from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, territory that includes the State of Israel, which would mean the dismantling of the Jewish state. It is an antisemitic charge denying the Jewish right to self-determination, including through the removal of Jews from their ancestral homeland."

ADL? Lol.

Edit: Also, take it up with Likud.

 

[neothanos]

That a country shouldn't exist =/= genocide. Otherwise, that same framework could be applied to Israelis and their supporters who are against a Palestinian state.


Those aren't really "mischaracterizations" as much as they are accurate descriptions that you don't like.


If only Palestinians had a missile shield, then maybe tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of them would still be alive.


ADL? Lol.

Edit: Also, take it up with Likud.
View attachment 393438

What's Missing From the Human Rights Watch Report Calling Israel Apartheid

Here's a digestible discussion of why you're incorrect.

Also, a state has been offered to arab/muslims in gaza and surrounding areas many times. They refuse because of "right of return." This situation is not on Israel. It is historically ignorant to argue so.

 

[psych.meout]

What's Missing From the Human Rights Watch Report Calling Israel Apartheid

Here's a digestible discussion of why you're incorrect.

Also, a state has been offered to arab/muslims in gaza and surrounding areas many times. They refuse because of "right of return." This situation is not on Israel. It is historically ignorant to argue so.

Why shouldn't people have a right of return to their own homes that were taken from them?

Doesn't it argue against your claim that it isn't apartheid when they don't have this right and any supposed "peace plan" offered by Israel refuses this right for them while other groups in Israel have this same right?

 

[R. Matey]

Not sure you guys are going to solve the middle east in this thread.

 

[borne_before]

Why shouldn't people have a right of return to their own homes that were taken from them?

Doesn't it argue against your claim that it isn't apartheid when they don't have this right and any supposed "peace plan" offered by Israel refuses this right for them while other groups in Israel have this same right?

BECAUSE THEY LOST IT IN A WAR.

 

[psych.meout]

BECAUSE THEY LOST IT IN A WAR.

The war that occurred after the land was stolen and partitioned by colonial Western powers, who had previously promised to support Arab independence (including Palestine) in exchange for help in overthrowing the Ottoman Empire during WWI, only to renege on this promise and become new colonial overlords.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Mod Note: We seem to be venturing into topics that, although important, aren't necessarily within the scope of this specific forum. Let's try to steer back on course.

Thanks all.

 

[neothanos]

Mod Note: We seem to be venturing into topics that, although important, aren't necessarily within the scope of this specific forum. Let's try to steer back on course.

Thanks all.

Yes. And APA ventured into a topic that, although important, isn't within the scope of their mandate. The conversation reinforces the nature of the error. They should not have said anything about it. Do I think that the APA leadership is antisemitic? Yes, and racist and sexist for that matter.

 

[cara susanna]

See, even this thread devolved into a charged debate. This is why I think professional organizations need to stay out of this topic (unless it's, like, very obviously and directly part of their mission statement, like pro-Israel and pro-Palestine organizations). It tore apart the DBT listserv for months, and these were therapists who are trained in validation and dialectical thinking!

If APA really wants to wade into a SUPER controversial and complex topic that will anger people no matter what they say or how they say it, how about they tackle ABA?

 

[WisNeuro]

See, even this thread devolved into a charged debate. This is why I think professional organizations need to stay out of this topic (unless it's, like, very obviously and directly part of their mission statement, like pro-Israel and pro-Palestine organizations). It tore apart the DBT listserv for months, and these were therapists who are trained in validation and dialectical thinking!

If APA really wants to wade into a SUPER controversial and complex topic that will anger people no matter what they say or how they say it, how about they tackle ABA?

"It's child abuse/gaslighting/toxic/late stage capitalism!!!"

 

[futureapppsy2]

See, even this thread devolved into a charged debate. This is why I think professional organizations need to stay out of this topic (unless it's, like, very obviously and directly part of their mission statement, like pro-Israel and pro-Palestine organizations). It tore apart the DBT listserv for months, and these were therapists who are trained in validation and dialectical thinking!

If APA really wants to wade into a SUPER controversial and complex topic that will anger people no matter what they say or how they say it, how about they tackle ABA?

100%. This topic tends to bring out the worst in people whenever they try to discuss it (I’m so, so, so tired of reductionist statements about both Palestinians/Arabs and Israelis/Jews that dehumanize large groups of people) and like RMatey said, nobody is coming close to solving Middle East peace, war crimes, generational trauma, antisemitism, or racism in this thread (or at APA for that matter).

 

[Shiori]

See, even this thread devolved into a charged debate. This is why I think professional organizations need to stay out of this topic (unless it's, like, very obviously and directly part of their mission statement, like pro-Israel and pro-Palestine organizations). It tore apart the DBT listserv for months, and these were therapists who are trained in validation and dialectical thinking!

If APA really wants to wade into a SUPER controversial and complex topic that will anger people no matter what they say or how they say it, how about they tackle ABA?

It seems like it's hit a lot of groups usually known for nuance. For example, I have always liked watching journalism as a field because they can tell stories with our research in ways that we often can't. Observing them discuss this issue has been strange because journalists who are usually careful and curious are leading with their own stances. We all have to wrestle with our biases, but this issue seems to have disrupted the usual standards we take for other controversial topics. It's hard to wrap my head around what is happening and why.

The APA couldn't have gotten this one right one way or the other. This is a large, old organization. How are they not able to read the situation? And if they did read it, and still commented, what was the end goal?

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

It seems like it's hit a lot of groups usually known for nuance. For example, I have always liked watching journalism as a field because they can tell stories with our research in ways that we often can't. Observing them discuss this issue has been strange because journalists who are usually careful and curious are leading with their own stances. We all have to wrestle with our biases, but this issue seems to have disrupted the usual standards we take for other controversial topics. It's hard to wrap my head around what is happening and why.

The APA couldn't have gotten this one right one way or the other. This is a large, old organization. How are they not able to read the situation? And if they did read it, and still commented, what was the end goal?

Machine learning/AI algorithms have been developed (and are in full operation--and have been, for a while) to 'steer' folks in certain directions in terms of what info they access (or is 'presented to them' by the algorithm) based on their historically tracked preferences/choices and 'clicking'/ comsuming (of media and webpages) behavior.

I think it's plausible that this may result, over time, in the 'drift' of opinions, toward one of two ends of a 'bipolar' continuum of opposites (e.g., conservative vs. liberal, rural vs. urban, pro-palestine vs. pro-israel, etc.). In fact, it's 'designed' to (in terms of the algorithm coming up with mathematically-optimized procedures to do so.

Maybe this is at least partly the reason that otherwise well-meaning and well-informed people (including all of us) can get sucked in to fireworks (since we're arguing at one another from opposite ends of the bipolar continuum of opinions and each marshalling 'facts' in support of our opposing positions from databases of facts that don't overlap very much.

The real pickle of it is that only actual engagement in (fractious, emotionally charged) debate between folks at opposite ends of the spectrum could (should?) theoretically, over time, broaden each of their perspectives and expose each side to part of the database that they've been automatically steered away from by the algorithms.

 

[futureapppsy2]

It seems like it's hit a lot of groups usually known for nuance. For example, I have always liked watching journalism as a field because they can tell stories with our research in ways that we often can't. Observing them discuss this issue has been strange because journalists who are usually careful and curious are leading with their own stances. We all have to wrestle with our biases, but this issue seems to have disrupted the usual standards we take for other controversial topics. It's hard to wrap my head around what is happening and why.

The APA couldn't have gotten this one right one way or the other. This is a large, old organization. How are they not able to read the situation? And if they did read it, and still commented, what was the end goal?

I think Jews being heavily centered in it has at least something to do with it, tbh—people seem to collectively lose their minds when it comes to us, either antisemitically (we are evil, we control everything, we are the source of every problem, etc) or via antisemitic philosemitism (e.g. we all need to go back to Israel so the world can end, we are magical symbols and not flawed, human people, etc), and a lot of people project that onto Israel/Palestine, even if just from a lifetime of hearing those tropes. Add to that anti-Arab/anti-Palestinian racism and Islamophobia, the massive amounts of generational trauma among both Jews and Palestinians, the various distortions of the history of both peoples, and other nations using Israel and Palestine and their peoples as political chess pieces, and you have metaphorical land mines everywhere around the topic.

 

[neothanos]

I think Jews being heavily centered in it has at least something to do with it, tbh—people seem to collectively lose their minds when it comes to us, either antisemitically (we are evil, we control everything, we are the source of every problem, etc) or via antisemitic philosemitism (e.g. we all need to go back to Israel so the world can end, we are magical symbols and not flawed, human people, etc), and a lot of people project that onto Israel/Palestine, even if just from a lifetime of hearing those tropes. Add to that anti-Arab/anti-Palestinian racism and Islamophobia, the massive amounts of generational trauma among both Jews and Palestinians, the various distortions of the history of both peoples, and other nations using Israel and Palestine and their peoples as political chess pieces, and you have metaphorical land mines everywhere around the topic.

I think our field is high empathy and increasingly low abstract reasoning ability. The current empathy rubric is based on the intersectional hierarchy. So, we hear terms like “centering,” and “decolonize.” The big target right now is Western European culture. Israel is framed as the Western European colonizer, which makes Palestinians the oppressed minority and the group most worthy of support.

The APA leadership simply reflects the quality of thought most broadly present in our field right now. They’re making ill advised, poorly thought out statements across a variety of politically intersecting complex topics because their perspectives are poorly formed, myopic and driven by feelings, not reason.

 

[borne_before]

I think our field is high empathy and increasingly low abstract reasoning ability. The current empathy rubric is based on the intersectional hierarchy. So, we hear terms like “centering,” and “decolonize.” The big target right now is Western European culture. Israel is framed as the Western European colonizer, which makes Palestinians the oppressed minority and the group most worthy of support.

The APA leadership simply reflects the quality of thought most broadly present in our field right now. They’re making ill advised, poorly thought out statements across a variety of politically intersecting complex topics because their perspectives are poorly formed, myopic and driven by feelings, not reason.

It's so interesting to me and I really like how you said that. It's interesting because Arabs (after the Muslim conquests) are among the most extreme modern and historical colonizers. The Arabization of the middle east and north africa is especially amazing. So I guess it's only bad when Jews do re-colonize their ancestral homeland?

 

[neothanos]

It's so interesting to me and I really like how you said that. It's interesting because Arabs (after the Muslim conquests) are among the most extreme modern and historical colonizers. The Arabization of the middle east and north africa is especially amazing. So I guess it's only bad when Jews do re-colonize their ancestral homeland?

I think it’s simpler than that relative to Western/apa support from a certain socio-political perspective. Some of the Israelis appear European. The Palestinians simply have darker skin. And, Israel has more money and capitalism is a system of white supremacy that needs to be dismantled.

The actual situation in the Middle East is far more complicated than that.

 

[borne_before]

I think it’s simpler than that relative to Western/apa support from a certain socio-political perspective. Some of the Israelis appear European. The Palestinians simply have darker skin. And, Israel has more money and capitalism is a system of white supremacy that needs to be dismantled.

The actual situation in the Middle East is far more complicated than that.

Can you think of the cause and why the simplified social hierarchy of “white bad, capitalism bad” became so pervasive in the apa and academia? Amy solutions?

 

[Shiori]

I think Jews being heavily centered in it has at least something to do with it, tbh—people seem to collectively lose their minds when it comes to us, either antisemitically (we are evil, we control everything, we are the source of every problem, etc) or via antisemitic philosemitism (e.g. we all need to go back to Israel so the world can end, we are magical symbols and not flawed, human people, etc), and a lot of people project that onto Israel/Palestine, even if just from a lifetime of hearing those tropes. Add to that anti-Arab/anti-Palestinian racism and Islamophobia, the massive amounts of generational trauma among both Jews and Palestinians, the various distortions of the history of both peoples, and other nations using Israel and Palestine and their peoples as political chess pieces, and you have metaphorical land mines everywhere around the topic.

Right, that makes a lot of sense. Emotional connections to stories only maintain our attention for so long. We have been paying rapt to this particular conflict off and on for decades. We're in a strange flashpoint right now that seems to be aggravating something deeper. There are individuals and their feelings about the situation, but this seems like a system stretching and changing into something slightly different. It makes me think about our lack of interest in places like Haiti and the Dominican Republic. People can present a perspective on either side without it being a full news cycle's worth of discussion.

 

[neothanos]

Can you think of the cause and why the simplified social hierarchy of “white bad, capitalism bad” became so pervasive in the apa and academia? Amy solutions?

Why:
Progressive left echo chamber. Current DEI, intersectionality concept dominance. Requiring political litmus test statements for admission and promotion, and for leadership roles. Why apa so myopic? No opposing voices in their circle. No ability to digest information from another framework.

Solution:
ban political litmus tests from admission, promotion and leadership role considerations. Dismantle current Dei concept space as the dominant modern approach to understanding relationships between people.

 

[psych.meout]

I think our field is high empathy and increasingly low abstract reasoning ability. The current empathy rubric is based on the intersectional hierarchy. So, we hear terms like “centering,” and “decolonize.” The big target right now is Western European culture. Israel is framed as the Western European colonizer, which makes Palestinians the oppressed minority and the group most worthy of support.

The APA leadership simply reflects the quality of thought most broadly present in our field right now. They’re making ill advised, poorly thought out statements across a variety of politically intersecting complex topics because their perspectives are poorly formed, myopic and driven by feelings, not reason.

Don't you think it's a little self-serving and obtuse to impugn people's reasoning abilities because they haven't made the decisions or adopted the same views you have?

 

[neothanos]

Don't you think it's a little self-serving and obtuse to impugn people's reasoning abilities because they haven't made the decisions or adopted the same views you have?

No. Not that it matters but that’s not why I’m impugning their reasoning abilities.

 

[Shiori]

I find that most of these discussions are differences in values rather than differences in intellect. My discussions are more productive when I can slow down long enough to understand how we demonstrate our different values rather than assuming I have run across a piece of knowledge they don't know or have avoided some error in logic. Especially topics like this. Brilliant people have argued every point in this thread. Likely with entire books of material. Yet, here we are.

 

[neothanos]

I find that most of these discussions are differences in values rather than differences in intellect. My discussions are more productive when I can slow down long enough to understand how we demonstrate our different values rather than assuming I have run across a piece of knowledge they don't know or have avoided some error in logic. Especially topics like this. Brilliant people have argued every point in this thread. Likely with entire books of material. Yet, here we are.

I generally agree. The issue here is ideology. It’s similar to religion. I think what we have is the incursion in apa of a dominant world view, which is more religion than science. Call this a lack of applied reasoning skills, or a blind spot. I see religious belief in the same way. And, when people operating from a religious viewpoint make assertions about a topic which is addressed by that religion, what they say must be understood from the assumptions of that religion. Same thing as considering what a Jehovah’s Witness has to say about getting rid of demons. That’s how I interpret what apa releases when they put out these sorts of ill-considered statements on politically complex topics. They’re doing so because they’re not critically evaluating their view of how the world works. Probably don’t even know anyone personally who would critically evaluate those base assumptions.

 

[psych.meout]

I generally agree. The issue here is ideology. It’s similar to religion. I think what we have is the incursion in apa of a dominant world view, which is more religion than science. Call this a lack of applied reasoning skills, or a blind spot. I see religious belief in the same way. And, when people operating from a religious viewpoint make assertions about a topic which is addressed by that religion, what they say must be understood from the assumptions of that religion. Same thing as considering what a Jehovah’s Witness has to say about getting rid of demons. That’s how I interpret what apa releases when they put out these sorts of ill-considered statements on politically complex topics. They’re doing so because they’re not critically evaluating their view of how the world works. Probably don’t even know anyone personally who would critically evaluate those base assumptions.

Again, everyone else who disagrees with you has ideology, religious-like beliefs, lack of applied reasoning skills, and/or blind spots, but you don't?

Seems like just different ways of disparaging others and not addressing their actual arguments.

 

[neothanos]

Again, everyone else who disagrees with you has ideology, religious-like beliefs, lack of applied reasoning skills, and/or blind spots, but you don't?

Seems like just different ways of disparaging others and not addressing their actual arguments.

Not everyone. Specific people. But, the broader point here is if there was a diversity of viewpoints in apa leadership, they wouldn’t have released the statement. Seems there’s agreement in the thread largely that the statement was poor. I think the why of that is fairly considered to be poor reasoning, lack of wisdom.

 

[Shiori]

I think some people are wondering why they did it and other people are guessing. We can't really know for sure. I regularly tell my patients that no one can read minds. I have to remind myself of that when my patients think I'm magical.

We could just as easily assume the more cynical reason that this is a very easy way to garner attention and get subscriptions up. It's controversial enough to get people talking without actually being provocative. Maybe it's a miscalculation in marketing. I haven't thought positively or negatively about the APA other than tangentially in years.

I have no idea.

 

[LM02]

Do you have a link to the text of this?

Her comment that she meant this as a reflection on stolen African Art came at 9:06pm, after her original post 8:23pm generated some outrage.

x.com

x.com

 

[JustNoticing]

Or maybe many Lebanese, Iranians, and muslims living in Gaza believe that Israel shouldn't exist, refuse to say the word "Israel" (I've encountered this personally) and refer to Israelis as "colonizers" and to the "occupation" and mischaracterize the Gaza situation as "apartheid." Maybe, people in that region have been engaging in suicide bombings and missile attacks so frequently and consistently that Israel had to create a missile shield.

There's a longer discussion and history. But, from the ADL: You are being redirected...

“From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” is an antisemitic slogan commonly featured in anti-Israel campaigns and chanted at demonstrations.

This rallying cry has long been used by anti-Israel voices, including supporters of terrorist organizations such as Hamas and the PFLP, which seek Israel’s destruction through violent means. It is fundamentally a call for a Palestinian state extending from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, territory that includes the State of Israel, which would mean the dismantling of the Jewish state. It is an antisemitic charge denying the Jewish right to self-determination, including through the removal of Jews from their ancestral homeland."

ADL is not a valid source, they are a pro-israel lobbying group masquerading as a human rights organization. Have been for decades now. This is why they lost the starbucks contract. Us Jews under the age of 50 who aren't rabid zionists all seem to know this: The Unbearable Ignorance of the ADL

 

[neothanos]

ADL is not a valid source, they are a pro-israel lobbying group masquerading as a human rights organization. Have been for decades now. This is why they lost the starbucks contract. Us Jews under the age of 50 who aren't rabid zionists all seem to know this: The Unbearable Ignorance of the ADL

I can understand your view of the adl. There are tons of other sources, which similarly avoid white washing the phrase. But, consider this. Many (most?) Jews view the phrase as a call for violence and don’t feel safe around people chanting it and wearing Hamas scarves, like at their colleges as they’re walking to class. Given the typical under 50 college student/professor viewpoint that words are violence and belief in micro-aggressions and coded language, why are you ok with it?

 

[Shiori]

This whole thing has been bothering me so I started looking around for more concrete reasons that this is such a fiery issue right now and just feels different.

I have no interest in wading into the politics themselves, but Trump's relationship with Netanyahu during his presidency brought a lot of attention to Israel. With him being such a polarizing, visible figure, people were exposed to more of the policies of Israel. Many people were also sitting at home and watching various horrors day in and day out. Hence why the social justice piece comes in. American Jews as a demographic showed a significant decline in relating to Israel due in part its leadership working closely with Trump. There was also a sharp decline in support from young Evangelicals as the group becomes more interested in solving humanitarian crises. Overall, Democrats obviously showed a decline and Republicans stayed steady or increased their support.

Another interesting part of the story is having more access to the stories of Palestinians. TikTok blew up during Covid and it's a very global platform. People could more easily hear the stories and witness the lives of the Palestinians. These stories were interesting and compelling and it created demand for more information. Unless the conflict in the Middle East is a specific interest to someone in the US, it's unlikely that most people will know the inner workings of the government enough to form an opinion that challenges their more passively held beliefs.

This is all simplified of course, but I was trying to wrap my head around why this has become such a big story. This at least adds more layers to consider. Gallop said the decline for support went from 75 percent in 2021 to 58 percent in 2024.

 

[Shiori]

While I appreciate your enthusiasm for the topic, I think I will disengage. I hope you find what you're looking for though.