!@#% Around and Found Out

[Sanman]

Oh boy. Let’s please not bring politics into this, that’s a can of worms that might send this little community of ours into full-on war 🪱😬

Let us not be afraid of difficult conversations. Politics devolved because people feel the need to take sides as if there are only two sides a person is allowed to take. Similarly, this conversation often devolves into for or against DEI the policy being that same as for or against equality or equity. I don't believe anyone here is saying equality is not an ideal to strive for or that equity is needed at times in service of equality. However, policies are not the same as ideals. I am for those people that are often marginalized to be put on equal footing with those who have greater privilege. However, the policy is not the ideal. The policy may mean that Colin Powell's grandkids get a better chance at hanging out with George Bush's grandkids because we have turned diversity into a single facet issue. Turning it into that issue may serve politicians more than the public at large. Notice no one is asking whether representation in government can be fair when two billionaires ran for president last election.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[tombreaz]

Hey I’m not saying males and females aren’t different. Hell, IQ scores show that males tend to score higher in visuospatial skills and females score higher in verbal skills. It’s a fact, and I’m not trying to argue that we don’t have our strengths and weaknesses that vary across genders. But being better-suited for academic positions? I don’t think you can argue either gender is better suited for that.

I addressed that slightly by bringing up engineering. 1 girl, 19 guys. Choice. No one is preventing anyone from pursuing academic positions (except the OP, ironically, which your side has actually been arguing is an okay thing to have happened-which isn't consistent). If group X has more proclivity toward X academic position, then fine. More women teachers-great. More women nurses. Is there an issue with that? Differences and disparities surround us and are a part of life. More often than not it's due to choice and not something immoral trying to hide in the shadows. If the immoral element is there then I'll fight against it as well.

 

[tombreaz]

You might want to look at racial colorblindness research and how effective (or ineffective) it is and who engages in that thinking the most.

https://eclass.uoa.gr/modules/document/file.php/PSYCH138/Βιβλιογραφία/Πολιτισμικές%20ιδεολογίες/Apfelbaum%20et%20al.%20%282015%29%20Racial%20color%20blindness.pdf

I think there are pros and cons to colorblindness, situation dependent.

 

[Sanman]

I addressed that slightly by bringing up engineering. 1 girl, 19 guys. Choice. No one is preventing anyone from pursuing academic positions (except the OP, ironically, which your side has actually been arguing is an okay thing to have happened-which isn't consistent). If group X has more proclivity toward X academic position, then fine. More women teachers-great. More women nurses. Is there an issue with that? Differences and disparities surround us and are a part of life. More often than not it's due to choice and not something immoral trying to hide in the shadows. If the immoral element is there then I'll fight against it as well.

My personal opinion is that we can take it one step further. You can prioritize opportunity for Black and female engineers as long as you also prioritize opportunities for male and Asian nurses, teachers, and psychologists in the name of greater diversity. But, we won't do that because STEM will be considered a single category and breaking down diversity in finer detail is apparently too hard for those in power. Or because they have an agenda.

 

[tombreaz]

My personal opinion is that we can take it one step further. You can prioritize opportunity for Black and female engineers as long as you also prioritize opportunities for male and Asian nurses, teachers, and psychologists in the name of greater diversity. But, we won't do that because STEM will be considered a single category and breaking down diversity in finer detail is apparently too hard for those in power. Or because they have an agenda.

We already have a diversity officer and I don't think it's a position that needs to exist. They don't do much and yet they still get a great salary. If anyone wants to be in our grad classes, they simply need to apply, pay the fees, and make the gpa cutoff. You can be black, brown, yellow, or green (whites not allowed. JK ).

What's interesting to me is to see docs go back and forth on this and other tangential topics. I had assumed when entering STEM that I'd find a community that stands up for what's right and true-especially in relation to science and common sense.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

Let us not be afraid of difficult conversations. Politics devolved because people feel the need to take sides as if there are only two sides a person is allowed to take. Similarly, this conversation often devolves into for or against DEI the policy being that same as for or against equality or equity. I don't believe anyone here is saying equality is not an ideal to strive for or that equity is needed at times in service of equality. However, policies are not the same as ideals. I am for those people that are often marginalized to be put on equal footing with those who have greater privilege. However, the policy is not the ideal. The policy may mean that Colin Powell's grandkids get a better chance at hanging out with George Bush's grandkids because we have turned diversity into a single facet issue. Turning it into that issue may serve politicians more than the public at large. Notice no one is asking whether representation in government can be fair when two billionaires ran for president last election.

We can (and SHOULD) strive to treat everyone more fairly.

I'm not sure that 'equity' in terms of 'equal outcomes' or every profession needs to reflect the exact composition of the population in terms of race, sex, age, sexual orientation, SES, IQ, disability, etc. is even possible let alone desirable.

Let's just take one variable (sex). Would it be 'fair' to implement draconian policies forcing 'equity' (50/50 split) in terms of numbers of men vs. women in nursing? In education? In preschool teachers? In high school football coaches? In astronauts? In plumbers? In automobile mechanics? In psychologists? In social workers? In airline pilots? In combat arms M.O.S.' in the military, etc., etc., etc.

People have different interests, aptitudes, preferences, and these are not necessarily randomly distributed across the sexes, let alone randomly distributed among all of the sex X sexual oritentation X race X age X SES X IQ X educational attainment {and so on, ad infinitum} multidimensional matrices of interdimensional oppression. Forcing 'equal outcomes' isn't 'fair.' It's tyranny. It's absurd. It's blatantly UN-fair.

 

[alice_in_neuro_wonderland]

White females are far more statistically 'overrepresented' in clinical psychology these days than white males. There are calls to deal with the 'problem' of white male 'overrepresentation' but not white female 'overrepresentation.'

I mean, I think calls to bring racial diversity in are, in fact, calls to deal with white female overrepresentation. And I won’t argue with you that psychology is becoming more female-dominated, though I haven’t seen the actual numbers on that. This doesn’t mean it was this way even a short while ago though….look at our founding fathers. Bunch of white dudes.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

God help us.

 

[WisNeuro]

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

 

[Sanman]

God help us.

Why you got to bother God with this, he got plans

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

Why you got to bother God with this, he got plans

Then I'll have to make do with an 'old white dude' like Alexander Hamilton (excerpt from Federalist No. 10) who seems to be describing with amazing prescience a lot of what we're dealing with...

"By a faction I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.

There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects.

There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.

It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it is worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction, what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be a less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency."

 

[alice_in_neuro_wonderland]

I addressed that slightly by bringing up engineering. 1 girl, 19 guys. Choice. No one is preventing anyone from pursuing academic positions (except the OP, ironically, which your side has actually been arguing is an okay thing to have happened-which isn't consistent). If group X has more proclivity toward X academic position, then fine. More women teachers-great. More women nurses. Is there an issue with that? Differences and disparities surround us and are a part of life. More often than not it's due to choice and not something immoral trying to hide in the shadows. If the immoral element is there then I'll fight against it as well.

Well this is where I might disagree with you. I think “choice” is a very black and white way to look at it. For instance, girls in America are often given messages that they’re not supposed to be good at math. And that can stick with someone, and inform their effort and “choices” down the road. I could bring up more examples, but I think you get my point.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

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

According to these numbers, the percentage of psychologists who are white men looks to be about 25%. Since white men make up about 30% of the US population, technically, white men appear to be UNDER-represented in psychology (in relation to their percentage of the total population). I know, I know, that demographic must be punished but...to what extent (and to what end?). Do we need to get those numbers down to 20%? 10%? 1%? At what percentage will white men stop being 'overrepresented' in psychology? People have ridiculed the idea of eliminating white men from psychology but--seriously--how close to 0% representation do they have to get to no longer be considered to be 'overrepresented?'

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

Well this is where I might disagree with you. I think “choice” is a very black and white way to look at it. For instance, girls in America are often given messages that they’re not supposed to be good at math. And that can stick with someone, and inform their effort and “choices” down the road. I could bring up more examples, but I think you get my point.

Even people who have been 'given messages' have a choice. That's why there are some men in clinical psychology and some women aerospace engineers. We should celebrate human diversity and achievement.

 

[tombreaz]

Well this is where I might disagree with you. I think “choice” is a very black and white way to look at it. For instance, girls in America are often given messages that they’re not supposed to be good at math. And that can stick with someone, and inform their effort and “choices” down the road. I could bring up more examples, but I think you get my point.

I don't get your point at all because that's such a broad and unevidenced statement (girls are given messages to be bad at math??!!?!). Please try and justify this. I'll give you my counterpoints. My house was mostly female. Mom and 2 sisters. All of them are good at math. None of them ever had any message to be bad at it.

Fast forward years later.....I have a 9 year old daughter. Guess what part of her schooling is? Math! And me and everyone involved in her school want her to be good at it (along with every other subject). So how have I lived my whole life with many women spanning multiple generations and multiple states in the country and somehow escaped this woman are suppose to be bad at math phenomenon?

Super interested to hear where you think this boogey man comes from.

 

[PsyDWannabe]

I’m not going to pretend to know everything I’d need to know to give an informed opinion about Asian minorities and their exclusion from DEI initiatives. My initial surface thought is that perhaps there’s a reason I’m unaware of for why they are excluded. I could be wrong though. But as far as White males, well I think that reason is obvious….they’ve been on top of the food chain for a long long time.

But my question to you is, why is this the hill that you all (those who are arguing about what’s wrong with DEI) want to die on? This hill of nitpicking what’s wrong with DEI initiatives, for the sake of discrediting the whole thing and throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Could it maybe possibly be because the whole idea makes you uncomfortable? So far I haven’t heard any of you wholeheartedly say “yes, I’m not afraid to acknowledge my privilege, and yes the way things are is still not fair for minorities. Yes, I want to see change, I want to help change happen. I just have some adjustments I would make to how that’s being done, and here are some of my proposed solutions.”

Consider this “❤️“ a giant ‘like’ for all the points you’re making and also for how you’re making them!! 👏👏👏👏

 

[alice_in_neuro_wonderland]

Even people who have been 'given messages' have a choice. That's why there are some men in clinical psychology and some women aerospace engineers. We should celebrate human diversity and achievement.

I 100% agree we should celebrate diversity and human achievement. I just think it's simplistic to assume that because people overcame and are constantly continuing to overcome disadvantages, that means there aren't any disadvantages. What was that someone said about correlation vs. causation? 😉

 

[alice_in_neuro_wonderland]

I don't get your point at all because that's such a broad and unevidenced statement (girls are given messages to be bad at math??!!?!). Please try and justify this. I'll give you my counterpoints. My house was mostly female. Mom and 2 sisters. All of them are good at math. None of them ever had any message to be bad at it.

Fast forward years later.....I have a 9 year old daughter. Guess what part of her schooling is? Math! And me and everyone involved in her school want her to be good at it (along with every other subject). So how have I lived my whole life with many women spanning multiple generations and multiple states in the country and somehow escaped this woman are suppose to be bad at math phenomenon?

Super interested to hear where you think this boogey man comes from.

Okay then, you have your examples and I have mine. We both have a sample of convenience to support our arguments. But as I'm sure our resident rigorous stats proponents would agree, that doesn't prove or disprove anything. That said, I'm so glad to hear the women in your family had the positive experience you've described. Although I'd just like to respectfully point out that there seem to be a whole lot of assumptions going on on your part as to every message they receive from every person they interact with. I don't think that's possible for you to know.

 

[tombreaz]

Okay then, you have your examples and I have mine. We both have a sample of convenience to support our arguments. But as I'm sure our resident rigorous stats proponents would agree, that doesn't prove or disprove anything. That said, I'm so glad to hear the women in your family had the positive experience you've described.

Not gonna tell me your example?
Can you give me an explanation how every female I know was able to escape this anti-math thing you brought up?

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

I 100% agree we should celebrate diversity and human achievement. I just think it's simplistic to assume that because people overcame and are constantly continuing to overcome disadvantages, that means there aren't any disadvantages. What was that someone said about correlation vs. causation? 😉

I never said that there weren't advantages and disadvantages. I would say that those advantages and disadvantages are best understood in the context of the individual.

 

[alice_in_neuro_wonderland]

Not gonna tell me your example?
Can you give me an explanation how every female I know was able to escape this anti-math thing you brought up?

Superpowers, obviously. Just like your superpower of being all-knowing of every interaction of their lives. 😂

 

[alice_in_neuro_wonderland]

I never said that there weren't advantages and disadvantages. I would say that those advantages and disadvantages are best understood in the context of the individual.

Yeah, in a perfect world...I just don't think it's realistic on a practical level. DEI initiatives may not be perfect, but they're a start to address systemic problems.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

And that is where I think we would disagree the most, actually.

We will never 'eliminate' racism any more than we will ever 'eliminate' suicide, or poverty, or death, or disease, or drug addiction or...{insert negative thing or failing of human nature}. Flaws are a part of human nature. People are fallible.

The only thing we can do is strive to be more fair to individuals and not be unfair to individuals based on some arbitrary (non-relevant) characteristic that they happen to have. We can build systems that monitor unfair (arbitrary) treatment (the legal system does a decent--though imperfect--job of this; a constitutional republic protects individuals to some degree). But life will NEVER be 'fair' 100%. Unfair things will happen to you (and to me). And, believe it or not, people of good faith and with good intentions can actually disagree meaningfully on what is 'fair' or 'unfair' when looking at objectively the same situation. Values differ between people and not just because one group is 'good' and the other group is 'evil.'

 

[WisNeuro]

And that is where I think we would disagree the most, actually.

We will never 'eliminate' racism any more than we will ever 'eliminate' suicide, or poverty, or death, or disease, or drug addiction or...{insert negative thing or failing of human nature}. Flaws are a part of human nature. People are fallible.

The only thing we can do is strive to be more fair to individuals and not be unfair to individuals based on some arbitrary (non-relevant) characteristic that they happen to have. We can build systems that monitor unfair (arbitrary) treatment (the legal system does a decent--though imperfect--job of this; a constitutional republic protects individuals to some degree). But life will NEVER be 'fair' 100%. Unfair things will happen to you (and to me). And, believe it or not, people of good faith and with good intentions can actually disagree meaningfully on what is 'fair' or 'unfair' when looking at objectively the same situation. Values differ between people and not just because one group is 'good' and the other group is 'evil.'

I agree with this sentiment. Mostly because most of the initiatives I have seen are done haphazardly, and based on feeling or sentiment rather than any actual data driven approach. All they do if exacerbate some inequalities, barely scratch others, and foster resentment in many due to the shambolic approach. This is an area that psychology has seemingly been all too happy to abandon any sort of empirical approach with.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

I agree with this sentiment. Mostly because most of the initiatives I have seen are done haphazardly, and based on feeling or sentiment rather than any actual data driven approach. All they do if exacerbate some inequalities, barely scratch others, and foster resentment in many due to the shambolic approach. This is an area that psychology has seemingly been all too happy to abandon any sort of empirical approach with.

I know we joke a lot and are playful on this forum (and this is one thing I really love about it) but I am gravely concerned about the movement in psychology (and society in general) to move away from holding individuals accountable for their actions and seeing everything in terms of group membership (or inter-group conflict). Historically, it takes societies down some really horrific pathways when any group of people begin to be demonized or discriminated against solely due to their assigned group membership rather than being treated as individuals responsible for their own behavior (and not for the behavior of their parents, or their grandparents, or people with the same hair color, religion, or political affiliation). It is seriously destabilizing to societies and can flip rapidly where the oppressed become the oppressors and/or vice versa. It's not good.

 

[alice_in_neuro_wonderland]

And that is where I think we would disagree the most, actually.

We will never 'eliminate' racism any more than we will ever 'eliminate' suicide, or poverty, or death, or disease, or drug addiction or...{insert negative thing or failing of human nature}. Flaws are a part of human nature. People are fallible.

The only thing we can do is strive to be more fair to individuals and not be unfair to individuals based on some arbitrary (non-relevant) characteristic that they happen to have. We can build systems that monitor unfair (arbitrary) treatment (the legal system does a decent--though imperfect--job of this; a constitutional republic protects individuals to some degree). But life will NEVER be 'fair' 100%. Unfair things will happen to you (and to me). And, believe it or not, people of good faith and with good intentions can actually disagree meaningfully on what is 'fair' or 'unfair' when looking at objectively the same situation. Values differ between people and not just because one group is 'good' and the other group is 'evil.'

Well...here, I think it's my turn to say "God help us" lol But a couple points before I throw in the towel and ☮️ out:

1. I never said life needs to be 100% fair, c'mon. Why with the extremes again.
2. Yep people of good and fair intentions can disagree meaningfully--did I ever argue to the contrary?
3. I never split us into "good" and "evil" groups, once again, c'mon, why?
4. I don't think any of us are completely objective here. The sooner we can turn inward and reflect about how our own experiences and biases might affect our responses, the sooner this can be a productive debate. Until that happens...I don't think very much will be accomplished.

It's been real y'all. 🫡

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

Well...here, I think it's my turn to say "God help us" lol But a couple points before I throw in the towel and ☮️ out:

1. I never said life needs to be 100% fair, c'mon. Why with the extremes again.
2. Yep people of good and fair intentions can disagree meaningfully--did I ever argue to the contrary?
3. I never split us into "good" and "evil" groups, once again, c'mon, why?
4. I don't think any of us are completely objective here. The sooner we can turn inward and reflect about how our own experiences and biases might affect our responses, the sooner this can be a productive debate. Until that happens...I don't think very much will be accomplished.

It's been real y'all. 🫡

What biases do you have?

 

[alice_in_neuro_wonderland]

What biases do you have?

Stop sucking me back in haha 😂 Last post though, because it's a fair question. Honestly, I used to have the same biases as many of you who are arguing about this stuff, i.e. minorities are taking away my slice of the pie, DEI is unfair to white people, it's a flawed idea that is hypocritical, etc. It wasn't until I self-reflected and started actually listening to minority experiences and paying attention that I realized systemic oppression is something that is alive and well, and easy to ignore, especially where you're the one in a privileged position. And yes I have experienced oppression for minority characteristics personally as well, and it was most definitely not enjoyable or fair. So there you go, those are my biases. Hopefully that answers your question.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

Stop sucking me back in haha 😂 Last post though, because it's a fair question. Honestly, I used to have the same biases as many of you who are arguing about this stuff, i.e. minorities are taking away my slice of the pie, DEI is unfair to white people, it's a flawed idea that is hypocritical, etc. It wasn't until I self-reflected and started actually listening to minority experiences and paying attention that I realized systemic oppression is something that is alive and well, and easy to ignore, especially where you're the one in a privileged position. And yes I have experienced oppression for minority characteristics personally as well, and it was most definitely not enjoyable or fair. So there you go, those are my biases. Hopefully that answers your question.

Fair enough. Textbook answer.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

Cause I am not a White guy.

You sound like an individual...with your own unique history, challenges, strengths, weaknesses, viewpoints...and--as an individual--you are the ultimate 'minority.'

 

[PsyDWannabe]

Well...here, I think it's my turn to say "God help us" lol But a couple points before I throw in the towel and ☮️ out:

1. I never said life needs to be 100% fair, c'mon. Why with the extremes again.
2. Yep people of good and fair intentions can disagree meaningfully--did I ever argue to the contrary?
3. I never split us into "good" and "evil" groups, once again, c'mon, why?
4. I don't think any of us are completely objective here. The sooner we can turn inward and reflect about how our own experiences and biases might affect our responses, the sooner this can be a productive debate. Until that happens...I don't think very much will be accomplished.

It's been real y'all. 🫡

Breathe. Only so much can be done in one day, especially when the battle is uphill. You definitely don’t need me to tell you this but just for the record, please take rest as you see fit.

 

[borne_before]

Stop sucking me back in haha 😂 Last post though, because it's a fair question. Honestly, I used to have the same biases as many of you who are arguing about this stuff, i.e. minorities are taking away my slice of the pie, DEI is unfair to white people, it's a flawed idea that is hypocritical, etc. It wasn't until I self-reflected and started actually listening to minority experiences and paying attention that I realized systemic oppression is something that is alive and well, and easy to ignore, especially where you're the one in a privileged position. And yes I have experienced oppression for minority characteristics personally as well, and it was most definitely not enjoyable or fair. So there you go, those are my biases. Hopefully that answers your question.

You hit literally every point here. My eyes glaze over at the scripting (I work with a lot of autism).

 

[alice_in_neuro_wonderland]

Fair enough. Textbook answer.

You hit literally every point here. My eyes glaze over at the scripting (I work with a lot of autism).

Okay, your turn. Let’s hear your biases so I can offer my helpful opinions on them. 😉

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

Okay, your turn. Let’s hear your biases so I can offer my helpful opinions on them. 😉

I don't participate in struggle sessions.

And, actually, you didn't address the question (as an individual) about specifically what your biases were. You quoted religious ideology (as an abstract generalization). You used buzzwords and phrases. You quoted DEI 'scripture.'

I was looking for something like...'I defined the goal of appropriate representation, say, of white men, in the field of psychology as their percentage in the general population (say, in the country).'

'Then when it was demonstrated that the actual representation of white men in psychology (25%) is below their population percentage (30%), I was surprised since I had the presumption (bias) that white males are overrepresented in psychology.'

 

[alice_in_neuro_wonderland]

I don't participate in struggle sessions.

And, actually, you didn't address the question (as an individual) about specifically what your biases were. You quoted religious ideology (as an abstract generalization). You used buzzwords and phrases. You quoted DEI 'scripture.'

I was looking for something like...'I defined the goal of appropriate representation, say, of white men, in the field of psychology as their percentage in the general population (say, in the country).'

'Then when it was demonstrated that the actual representation of white men in psychology (25%) is below their population percentage (30%), I was surprised since I had the presumption (bias) that white males are overrepresented in psychology.'

Right. I bet you believe you don’t have any biases either. 😊 Or, at the very least, would never have the courage to honestly look at them, let alone put them out there to be scrutinized and criticized.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

Right. I bet you believe you don’t have any biases either. 😊 Or, at the very least, would never have the courage to honestly look at them, let alone put them out there to be scrutinized and criticized.

Predictable ad hominem response.

What is there to criticize or be embarrassed about what you 'put out' there? You basically quoted the 'Book of John' equivalent of the Church of DEI. You really are asserting that you confessed your sins in a manner that embarrasses you? You didn't say anything about yourself as an individual other than 'DEI is my Lord and Saviour...I was once lost, and now I am found.' How much 'courage' does it take to virtue signal?

 

[WisNeuro]

I don't participate in struggle sessions.

And, actually, you didn't address the question (as an individual) about specifically what your biases were. You quoted religious ideology (as an abstract generalization). You used buzzwords and phrases. You quoted DEI 'scripture.'

I was looking for something like...'I defined the goal of appropriate representation, say, of white men, in the field of psychology as their percentage in the general population (say, in the country).'

'Then when it was demonstrated that the actual representation of white men in psychology (25%) is below their population percentage (30%), I was surprised since I had the presumption (bias) that white males are overrepresented in psychology.'

Silly FoM, goalposts were meant to be moved at will.

 

[alice_in_neuro_wonderland]

Predictable ad hominem response.

Still haven’t heard you grace us with the sharing of one of your own though 😉 I’ll leave you to think about why. ✌️

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

I don't think you get it. You can't shame or manipulate me using the rules of a game/ideology that I don't agree with or buy into.

You asserted, 'The sooner we can turn inward and reflect about how our own experiences and biases might affect our responses, the sooner this can be a productive debate. Until that happens...I don't think very much will be accomplished.'

Which really intrigued me since you had just, in prior posts, defined over-representation (which, by the way, thank you for giving a meaningful response to that question). Then, when examination of evidence indicated that white men are actually underrepresented in psychology according to your own definition, I didn't hear you acknowledge the fact or say, 'hmm...maybe I was wrong.'

Instead, you put out some bland, straight from the textbook of DEI generalized slogans (which are not 'embarrassing' in today's climate to say the least, they basically are extremely 'mainstream' and even desirable to express publicly) and believe that you've put 'out there' your specific biases or mistaken impressions that you had that were later corrected?

I am not going to respond to that with my own ideological, generalized, textbook answer (without any personal relevance or specifics). It would be pointless. I'd prefer to have a conversation with an individual not an ideology. You demonstrated with your response, such as it was, that you were going to respond as the DEI textbook ideology. You were a mouthpiece for it.

 

[alice_in_neuro_wonderland]

I don't think you get it. You can't shame or manipulate me using the rules of a game/ideology that I don't agree with or buy into.

You asserted, 'The sooner we can turn inward and reflect about how our own experiences and biases might affect our responses, the sooner this can be a productive debate. Until that happens...I don't think very much will be accomplished.'

Which really intrigued me since you had just, in prior posts, defined over-representation (which, by the way, thank you for giving a meaningful response to that question). Then, when examination of evidence indicated that white men are actually underrepresented in psychology according to your own definition, I didn't hear you acknowledge the fact or say, 'hmm...maybe I was wrong.'

Instead, you put out some bland, straight from the textbook of DEI generalized slogans (which are not 'embarrassing' in today's climate to say the least, they basically are extremely 'mainstream' and even desirable to express publicly) and believe that you've put 'out there' your specific biases or mistaken impressions that you had that were later corrected?

I am not going to respond to that with my own ideological, generalized, textbook answer (without any personal relevance or specifics). It would be pointless. I'd prefer to have a conversation with an individual not an ideology. You demonstrated with your response, such as it was, that you were going to respond as the DEI textbook ideology. You were a mouthpiece for it.

No shame or manipulation here--simply pointing out that you're happy to criticize my biases while avoiding sharing of your own, likely because you know that would open you up to scrutiny. Now, calling my open and honest response about my own biases textbook, ideological, bland, generalized, etc...there's a dirty power move if I ever saw one. But those have been plentiful from you and other folks on here who agree with your stance on DEI, so I could've seen that one coming. It's also why I'm no longer interested in participating in this. I do wish you all the best though.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

Still haven’t heard you grace us with the sharing of one of your own though 😉 I’ll leave you to think about why. ✌️

Here's what I think about 'biases' and how we address them in order to get closer and closer to the truth over time.

In order to identify a 'bias' (which is, essentially, an incorrect [according to evidence and logic] assumption that doesn't square with consensually-defined reality), you have to basically follow the scientific method.

Specific assertions (hypotheses) are made and a process of data gathering and hypothesis testing occurs (basically, logical empiricism). This is the foundational epistemological stance of all the sciences...including psychology.

I don't identify 'biases' and 'deal' with them through personal confession of 'sins' at a generalized level of abstraction (such as characterized your response to my question about your own self-identified biases). Me (or you) saying something like, 'I self-reflected and started actually listening to minority experiences and paying attention that I realized systemic oppression is something that is alive and well' isn't making any specific (potentially falsifiable) claims that can be investigated as true or false via logic, data collection, and interpretation. These statements are more akin to religious convictions than specific hypotheses that can be examined as being supported or unsupported by data.

Yes, I do realize (if we want to stay on the generalized level) that there are studies that do collect and analyze data that their authors interpret to be consistent with these ideas. But what is really interesting about the discussion sections of those articles is the general lack of acknowledgement given to alternative hypotheses or explanation for the results.

 

[WisNeuro]

Ah, the age old battle of feels vs. reals.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

Ah, the age old battle of feels vs. reals.

It is so strange that we, as a profession, adhere to logical empiricism (a.k.a., logical positivism), the foundation of which is the 'verifiability criterion of meaningfulness' in all areas of inquiry except with respect to DEI claims.

verifiability principle, a philosophical doctrine fundamental to the school of Logical Positivism holding that a statement is meaningful only if it is either empirically verifiable or else tautological (i.e., such that its truth arises entirely from the meanings of its terms). Thus, the principle discards as meaningless the metaphysical statements of traditional philosophy as well as other kinds of statements—such as ethical, aesthetic, or religious principles—asserted as true but neither tautological nor known from experience. Such statements may have meaning in the sense of being able to influence feelings, beliefs, or conduct but not in the sense of being true or false and hence of imparting knowledge. According to the principle, then, a nontautological statement has meaning only if some set of observable conditions is relevant to determining its truth or falsity; so stated, it reflects the view that the meaning of a statement is the set of conditions under which it would be true.

 

[WisNeuro]

It is so strange that we, as a profession, adhere to logical empiricism (a.k.a., logical positivism), the foundation of which is the 'verifiability criterion of meaningfulness' in all areas of inquiry except with respect to DEI claims.

verifiability principle, a philosophical doctrine fundamental to the school of Logical Positivism holding that a statement is meaningful only if it is either empirically verifiable or else tautological (i.e., such that its truth arises entirely from the meanings of its terms). Thus, the principle discards as meaningless the metaphysical statements of traditional philosophy as well as other kinds of statements—such as ethical, aesthetic, or religious principles—asserted as true but neither tautological nor known from experience. Such statements may have meaning in the sense of being able to influence feelings, beliefs, or conduct but not in the sense of being true or false and hence of imparting knowledge. According to the principle, then, a nontautological statement has meaning only if some set of observable conditions is relevant to determining its truth or falsity; so stated, it reflects the view that the meaning of a statement is the set of conditions under which it would be true.

Eh, it's been creeping into more than the DEI stuff, just look at the rise of pseudoscience treatments like EMDR, Neurofeedback, etc. It's risen in midlevels mostly, but also a good proportion of "doctoral" level individuals. I think there's been a larger push in the field away from data-driven approaches in teaching and practice, DEI being just another example of that. Unfortunately, for the DEI initiatives, the ignoring of data or wanting to more fully explore the data will just lead to "solutions" that don't actually address the issue. The EPPP being a key example. The test test itself is liekly not biased against POC, as much of the variance is likely explai9ned by program quality. I do not think it is a coincidence that the studies that sought to conclude that the test is biased had the data to explore this very question, but conveniently decided to not run those analyses. We are letting policies dictate the data, rather than letting the data help guide our policy and implementation.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

Eh, it's been creeping into more than the DEI stuff, just look at the rise of pseudoscience treatments like EMDR, Neurofeedback, etc. It's risen in midlevels mostly, but also a good proportion of "doctoral" level individuals. I think there's been a larger push in the field away from data-driven approaches in teaching and practice, DEI being just another example of that. Unfortunately, for the DEI initiatives, the ignoring of data or wanting to more fully explore the data will just lead to "solutions" that don't actually address the issue. The EPPP being a key example. The test test itself is liekly not biased against POC, as much of the variance is likely explai9ned by program quality. I do not think it is a coincidence that the studies that sought to conclude that the test is biased had the data to explore this very question, but conveniently decided to not run those analyses. We are letting policies dictate the data, rather than letting the data help guide our policy and implementation.

You are absolutely correct. Good points. The late Scott Lilienfeld made a solid career out of exposing how some of the areas you mention in your post failed to adhere to the scientific method.

I think it's also telling how different psychologists--especially in the context of exploring/debating this subject matter--define or interpret the word 'bias.' Or the concept of '[personal] bias.'

From the standpoint of a scientist, a discovered 'bias' (which would essentially be a hypothesis or a theoretical framework that can be demonstrated not to square with the data) is absolutely nothing to personally ashamed of and isn't something that needs personal 'confession' to address. It isn't a moral failing requiring personal confession, sacrifice, and redemption. It's simply an incorrect assumption (or series of interconnected assumptions). You acknowledge the data, revise your model, and move on. The scientific method itself is specifically designed--via a public process--to address personal biases. Making guesses or advancing hypotheses or theories that later turn out to be 'incorrect' is the very heart of scientific inquiry and practice. You're supposed to make 'bad guesses' and you're supposed to viciously attack your own ideas, theories, and especially the current dominant paradigm. To the extent that your efforts to falsify the dominant paradigm fail, the paradigm or theoretical framework may said to be corroborated or strengthened. Therefore, in most areas of scientific inquiry, vigorous attacks on the dominant theory are encouraged and rewarded. In DEI, critique, criticism, or 'attacks' on any of its central tenets are seen as abhorrent, disgusting, moral failings or something and frequently evoke direct personal insults (ad hominem attacks) to the character or morality of the person questioning the theory. It really is astonishing.

 

[Pragma]

It is sad to watch the conversations (predictably) become tribal with the more extreme part of one side always shutting down when there is not 100% agreement with their ideology, resistance to a data-driven discussion, and devolving to ad hominem. You know the ideology has a problem if it does not encourage examining alternatives, nuance, or practical implementation issues at the policy level.

I do not view it as sides myself - a continuum as many things are in this world. But I do not know many people on the progressive end of this debate that seem to be willing to tackle the idea that there are folks who accept/agree on the problems but disagree about the solutions.

 

[SomeGreatNotion]

It is sad to watch the conversations (predictably) become tribal with the more extreme part of one side always shutting down when there is not 100% agreement with their ideology, resistance to a data-driven discussion, and devolving to ad hominem.

Pot meet kettle. I fail to see how that last dozen posts were not ad hominem attacks on a poster's view. I fail to see how the alternative views presented here are not representative of a generalized, cooker cutter contrarianism. It must be nice to view oneself as above it all or representing the more moderated position.

 

[Pragma]

Pot meet kettle. I fail to see how that last dozen posts were not ad hominem attacks on a poster's view. I fail to see how the alternative views presented here are not representative of a generalized, cooker cutter contrarianism. It must be nice to view oneself as above it all or representing the more moderated position.

Ad hominem attacks are on a poster, not their view. One should be able to argue perspectives, and, attack arguments.

 

[SomeGreatNotion]

Ad hominem attacks are on a poster, not their view. One should be able to argue perspectives

The suggestion is that the poster is engaging in virtue signaling and has not come to their view authentically.

 

[WisNeuro]

Ad Hominem Fallacy

Ad hominem means “against the man,” and this type of fallacy is sometimes called name calling or the personal attack fallacy. This type of fallacy occurs

owl.excelsior.edu