Lilienfeld article about Goldwater Rule

[cara susanna]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Hi all,

Were any of you aware that Lilienfeld had published an article criticizing the Goldwater Rule? I wanted to post about it here,, since I thought it'd be a fun discussion. I know this is a controversial topic and also that this board loves Lilienfeld (don't we all?)

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals

Subscription and open access journals from SAGE Publishing, the world's leading independent academic publisher.

journals.sagepub.com

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

Hi all,

Were any of you aware that Lilienfeld had published an article criticizing the Goldwater Rule? I wanted to post about it here,, since I thought it'd be a fun discussion. I know this is a controversial topic and also that this board loves Lilienfeld (don't we all?)

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals

Subscription and open access journals from SAGE Publishing, the world's leading independent academic publisher.

journals.sagepub.com

I love controversy (and think it's actually critical to the operation of science) and I (generally) love Lilienfield's work. I'm game.

Edit: After reading the abstract, it occurs to me that I don't love politics.

 

[cara susanna]

Ideally, I'd prefer that this conversation stick to the Goldwater Rule in general as opposed to discussion about specific political figures (although I am aware that could happen).

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Initial response after a skimming of the article: it's Lilienfeld, so he makes some good points. But I worry about anyone's (including psychologists') ability to separate political views and ideology from professional practice. We do it in our day-to-day practice, but when you're opining on a political figure with whom you haven't established any type of provider-patient relationship or contact, would it be more difficult to keep the two separate?

And I wonder if the counterargument to the influence on the reputation of the profession (which seems to essentially say, "we don't stop psychologists from making questionable decisions/remarks in other areas, why should we do it here?") doesn't take that particular threat seriously enough. It almost comes across as a cynical challenge to APA. "You haven't stopped pseudoscience in psychology to this point, so you don't get to stop this, either."