• Funniest Story on the Job Contest Starts Now!

    Contest starts now and ends September 27th. Winner will receive a special user banner and $10 Amazon Gift card!

    JOIN NOW
  • Site Updates Coming Next Week

    Site updates are coming next week on Monday and Friday. Click the button below to learn more!

    LEARN MORE

Lilienfeld article about Goldwater Rule

cara susanna

Full Member
10+ Year Member
Feb 10, 2008
6,442
3,720
276
Midwest
  1. Psychologist
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?)

 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

Fan_of_Meehl

Full Member
5+ Year Member
Oct 22, 2014
1,272
2,017
176
  1. Psychologist
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?)

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.
 

AcronymAllergy

Neuropsychologist
Volunteer Staff
10+ Year Member
Jan 7, 2010
8,293
3,379
376
  1. Psychologist
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."
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: 5 users
About the Ads
This thread is more than 1 year old.

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. Your new thread title is very short, and likely is unhelpful.
  2. Your reply is very short and likely does not add anything to the thread.
  3. Your reply is very long and likely does not add anything to the thread.
  4. It is very likely that it does not need any further discussion and thus bumping it serves no purpose.
  5. Your message is mostly quotes or spoilers.
  6. Your reply has occurred very quickly after a previous reply and likely does not add anything to the thread.
  7. This thread is locked.