PhD/PsyD PhD/PsyD App Requesting Diversity Statement?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
erg923 said:
"cisgender?" is this an actual thing, or something that has been made up in the past couple years?
Click to expand...

It's not that new. Some people used to use the term "natal male" or "natal female" but that fell out of favor.
 
Jon Snow said:
Sorry. Her name is Melissa Click.

Yes, I decided that was unduly harsh and not civil 🙂
Click to expand...


Ah, well, it is a sort of a stereotype after all. Insert self into thing that isn't really about you at all; manage nonetheless to make it all about you. Straight out of the white liberal playbook.
 
erg923 said:
This is a textbook example of what @Jon Snow is talking about and something that has become increasingly clear and disgusting to me. Thought policing, right? Don't believe in some of the lock-step liberal views/opinions, you must be flawed/racist/psychological ignorant, etc. The advantages of "diversity" only applies to skin color, right? You really want a world where we use psychology/psychiatry in this way?

Barring dissenting views of the world from an entire profession. Awesome idea. Very "progressive."
Click to expand...

And (chuckling to self)...I think that the pages of history will reveal that using psychiatry/psychology was already tried--in all places--the Soviet Union to disastrous results (compellingly chronicled in Alexandr Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago).

Equating (explicitly or implicitly) a 'conservative' political stance (which, interestingly, these days is more consistent with the views of 'classical' liberal thinkers such as John Locke and Thomas Jefferson) with mental illness or intellectual disability while all-the-while preaching about the value of 'diversity,' 'inclusion,' and 'tolerance' is particularly striking.
 
erg923 said:
"cisgender?" is this an actual thing, or something that has been made up in the past couple years?
Click to expand...

I think that it's the LGBTQ equivalent of 'gentile.'
 
Thanks for a rich discussion, everyone! For me, this thread just highlights how important it is to explicitly emphasize multicultural competence in training. This clearly is a complicated and hot topic, bound to affect how ethically we conduct clinical work.

My takeaway points are: (1) no consensus on separate statement vs. integration into personal statement; (2) ask about multicultural competency & insight into working with diverse populations, and not applicants' identities or personal contributions to diversity; (3) chose wording very carefully to (a) not invite applicants to simply check boxes, (b) not to invite a response that, in the context of applicant evaluation, could be perceived as an unprofessional rant (I'm struggling to phrase the last one sensitively and non-judgmentally. Maybe someone could help me out, I'm trying to say that it would not benefit applicants to express how much they love/hate Trump, eschew/endorse political correctness, etc. at length, in the context of their personal statement)
 
procrastin8r said:
For me, this thread just highlights how important it is to explicitly emphasize multicultural competence in training.... an unprofessional rant... it would not benefit applicants to express how much they love/hate Trump, eschew/endorse political correctness, etc. at length, in the context of their personal statement)
Click to expand...

I think you nailed it.
 
I honestly don't know how I would have answered such a question as an undergrad, it probably would have been terribly generic and unimpressive. I come from rural Iowa, all of the schools I attended and jobs I worked at prior to graduate school were between 95% and 100% white. I mostly only associated with people who were as much like me as possible because I had a fair bit of interpersonal insecurity and worried that people from different political/financial/etc. backgrounds wouldn't like me. Diversity honestly played a tremendously minimal part in my life and I don't know that I did hold a tremendous amount of value for it at that time. Would that have been considered an acceptable answer? Does this mean I wouldn't be an effective and/or ethical psychologist? My long-term career goal (which I accomplished) was to return to rural Iowa and practice here, serving the previously mentioned very homogenous community I grew up in, not because I am a racist butthole but because mental health here is god awful and I know how hard it is to grow up here without help. Is that population not valuable enough to want to serve? Does that not count as diversity? It should because no one else wants to work here. My county has 220k people and 22 licensed psychologists and I happen to know that at least 6 of them only practice part time.

Edit: Also 2 were licensed in the 70s so I can't imagine they are terribly active these days. I would bet we have about 11 full-time psychologists which is 1 per every 20k people.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
CWard12213 said:
Is that population not valuable enough to want to serve? Does that not count as diversity? It should because no one else wants to work here.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure of the subtext here, but rural populations absolutely fit with many definitions of "diversity" and are an important emerging focus of disparities research. Long overdue.
 
MamaPhD said:
I'm not sure of the subtext here, but rural populations absolutely fit with many definitions of "diversity" and are an important emerging focus of disparities research. Long overdue.
Click to expand...

I live in a rural area but actually work in a city of 120,ooo. There are no options for employment in the actual area that I grew up in so I had to compromise somewhat. I do still work with a lot of individuals from surrounding rural areas, but not even close to exclusively
 
Psych917 said:
Oh please, I was clearly responding outrageously to an outrageous hypothetical. But sure, please say more about what else is increasingly clear and disgusting to you. While my comment was meant to be facetious, let's not pretend there aren't values that the profession tries to uphold, and these values often intersect with politics. FYI, I do not believe that the advantages of "diversity" only applies to skin color nor do I believe not endorsing liberal views makes you flawed/racist/psychological ignorant--nice try though. Research does indicate that political conservatism is characterized by resistance to change and acceptance of inequality. I might benefit you to consider what may be threatening about the changes you are noticing in the field in the discourse around social issues. Also, no one is policing your thoughts, you can think whatever you want but people get to disagree with you.
Click to expand...

I don't think my perspective that diversity statements are meant to exclude individuals with certain values from practice is ridiculous. I don't personally believe diversity is inherently good or bad, it simply exists to whatever degree it exists and creates associated opportunities and challenges. I don't have any greater passion for working with individuals from diverse backgrounds than I do for working with individuals from backgrounds like my own on whatever measure you choose to assess that by. I don't have less passion for such individuals either. i simply want to help anyone requesting my services as much as I possibly can, so it would be difficult for me to say specifically how I value diversity.

I also know that in many contexts the word "diversity" does not actually mean understanding of and appreciation for differences but simply agreement with liberal perspectives which makes such a question a minefield to answer if you do not in fact agree with many liberal perspectives. Your initial response to me is a perfect example of this, as you suggested the field of psychology may be improved if our professionals were politically homogeneous.
 
CWard12213 said:
I honestly don't know how I would have answered such a question as an undergrad, it probably would have been terribly generic and unimpressive. I come from rural Iowa, all of the schools I attended and jobs I worked at prior to graduate school were between 95% and 100% white. I mostly only associated with people who were as much like me as possible because I had a fair bit of interpersonal insecurity and worried that people from different political/financial/etc. backgrounds wouldn't like me. Diversity honestly played a tremendously minimal part in my life and I don't know that I did hold a tremendous amount of value for it at that time. Would that have been considered an acceptable answer? Does this mean I wouldn't be an effective and/or ethical psychologist? My long-term career goal (which I accomplished) was to return to rural Iowa and practice here, serving the previously mentioned very homogenous community I grew up in, not because I am a racist butthole but because mental health here is god awful and I know how hard it is to grow up here without help. Is that population not valuable enough to want to serve? Does that not count as diversity? It should because no one else wants to work here. My county has 220k people and 22 licensed psychologists and I happen to know that at least 6 of them only practice part time.
Click to expand...

Interesting points! I have a few thoughts:
1. Yes, being raised in a rural area "counts" as diversity, even if you do not plan to live there again. Similarly, being raise in a markedly underserved community also "counts"

2. "Diversity" is the most commonly used term in these topics, but I agree, it's imperfect. Diversity largely means "being different within the same space", which is not quite what we're aiming at. The field is gradually moving towards using "inclusion" or "multicultural competency" instead, which is why the later versions of the personal statement question use these terms

3. Other posters asked questions similar to yours, in the general themes of: Why should I be penalized for coming from a monocultural Euro-American background? Do I have to be multiculturally competent if I am to practice in the same mono-cultural area?

The answers to these are, of course, complicated. First, the ultimate goal is not to penalize you for not checking a certain minority box, but to invite you to reflect on your multicultural competency (I've wrestled with the precise wording to evoke this response and not box-checking). So, if you hail from rural Iowa, you can reflect on rural culture, on lack resources for rural mental health, or simply on the fact that, as a member of a dominant mono-culture, you have been raised in relative privilege, and confronting this privilege will be beneficial to your training. My understanding that these types of responses would show openness to multicultural training, such that you would not be penalized for your background. Ostensibly, you could be "penalized" for hailing from your background AND expressing a lack of understanding of privilege and other cultural issues. So, "I have been raised with privilege" is an encouraged response, whereas "I am White, so I have no culture" or "Race doesn't matter, because we're all the same inside" would be discouraged responses.

Second, even if you plan to return to rural Iowa to practice, it would still benefit you to be trained in multicultural competency, because a. the population in your area may shift (e.g., similarly to influx of Somali and Hmong refugees to rural Minnesota), b. because APA considers this a mandatory competency, c. because, should you be accepted into our program, you will work with very diverse clinical and research populations. So, even if multicultural competency won't matter the day after you graduate, my program is ethically bound to consider how effective you could be delivering clinical services here. Again this doesn't meant that we'd rather accept students who check boxes, rather than students who don't. But this may mean that we'd potentially rather accept students who have some inkling or openness to multicultural competency, rather than students who don't have a clue. (Potentially, because these are hypothetical changes proposed by our diversity committee, and the current admission process is very traditionally "merit-based").
 
Thank you for your thoughtful response. I really do appreciate it. The truth is, I have a big problem with a lot of what you are saying.

You are using terms like "contributions to diversity" and "valuing diversity" somewhat interchangeably with terms like "multicultural competency." I've seen these two concepts frequently equated and I find it problematic. It has felt to me like psychologists are expected to have a particular passion for working with individuals from historically disadvantaged backgrounds, most significantly those of nonwhite races and to a lesser extent members of the LGTBQ community that goes above and beyond their passion for working with clients in general, or their passion for working with other groups who are particularly important to them for whatever reason. I agree with your assertion that multicultural competency is tremendously important no matter where one lives and/or practices, but I do not agree that one's ability to acquire multiculrual competency is dependent on their agreement with your personal and/or political perspectives on diversity, whiteness, and privilege. Upon what are you basing your assertion that recognizing and confronting my privilege would be beneficial to my training? On what basis would someone's ability to answer this question in a manner you find satisfactory on an essay be a valid reason to allow or deny their admission into a training program? These are your personal, political opinions. They also bleed through a bit in the sample answers that you give, that the inverse of someone who acknowledges and accepts the concept of privilege is someone who is so culturally dense that they would say something like "I am White, so I have no culture." It basically reads like you believe that people who do not share your personal perspectives on this topic are ignorant or uninformed.

How would you react if I were to ask your opinion on having students write an essay about their faith? (Assuming this is not a private, religious institution). What if I told you that I would consider an "encouraged response" to this question would be a statement about the role of the Lord in the individual's life, because I believe individuals who align with biblical Christian values are more likely to be effective clinicians? What if I told you someone could be "penalized" for expressing a lack of understand about the Lord's role in their life?
 
CWard12213 said:
Thank you for your thoughtful response. I really do appreciate it. The truth is, I have a big problem with a lot of what you are saying.

You are using terms like "contributions to diversity" and "valuing diversity" somewhat interchangeably with terms like "multicultural competency." I've seen these two concepts frequently equated and I find it problematic. It has felt to me like psychologists are expected to have a particular passion for working with individuals from historically disadvantaged backgrounds, most significantly those of nonwhite races and to a lesser extent members of the LGTBQ community that goes above and beyond their passion for working with clients in general, or their passion for working with other groups who are particularly important to them for whatever reason. I agree with your assertion that multicultural competency is tremendously important no matter where one lives and/or practices, but I do not agree that one's ability to acquire multiculrual competency is dependent on their agreement with your personal and/or political perspectives on diversity, whiteness, and privilege. Upon what are you basing your assertion that recognizing and confronting my privilege would be beneficial to my training? On what basis would someone's ability to answer this question in a manner you find satisfactory on an essay be a valid reason to allow or deny their admission into a training program? These are your personal, political opinions. They also bleed through a bit in the sample answers that you give, that the inverse of someone who acknowledges and accepts the concept of privilege is someone who is so culturally dense that they would say something like "I am White, so I have no culture." It basically reads like you believe that people who do not share your personal perspectives on this topic are ignorant or uninformed.

How would you react if I were to ask your opinion on having students write an essay about their faith? (Assuming this is not a private, religious institution). What if I told you that I would consider an "encouraged response" to this question would be a statement about the role of the Lord in the individual's life, because I believe individuals who align with biblical Christian values are more likely to be effective clinicians? What if I told you someone could be "penalized" for expressing a lack of understand about the Lord's role in their life?
Click to expand...
To add to what you are saying, most of our patients are marginalized and stigmatized for having a mental illness regardless of ethnicity or gender and mental illness crosses all of those lines anyway. I worked in a private facility that only the very wealthy could afford and when their kids lives were on the line, the only difference that money made was the level of service they could afford to provide and at times that wasn't enough. By the way, we had a surprisingly diverse population because wealth is not just contained in white European heterosexual families.
I have also worked with patients from intergenerational poverty which also crosses all those lines as well.
Basically, the political lines that are often drawn around these issues are not that helpful or useful in the real world of clinical practice, but I would never say that in a multicultural statement for fear of being branded racist or even worse...a Trump supporter. 😱

I try to stay very much in the middle of these political issues and see both sides of the argument, but that usually leads me to being accused by each side of being complicit in the evil that the other side is perpetrating.
 
smalltownpsych said:
To add to what you are saying, most of our patients are marginalized and stigmatized for having a mental illness regardless of ethnicity or gender and mental illness crosses all of those lines anyway. I worked in a private facility that only the very wealthy could afford and when their kids lives were on the line, the only difference that money made was the level of service they could afford to provide and at times that wasn't enough. By the way, we had a surprisingly diverse population because wealth is not just contained in white European heterosexual families.
I have also worked with patients from intergenerational poverty which also crosses all those lines as well.
Basically, the political lines that are often drawn around these issues are not that helpful or useful in the real world of clinical practice, but I would never say that in a multicultural statement for fear of being branded racist or even worse...a Trump supporter. 😱

I try to stay very much in the middle of these political issues and see both sides of the argument, but that usually leads me to being accused by each side of being complicit in the evil that the other side is perpetrating.
Click to expand...

Exactly! That is what drives me crazy about asking prospective students to write essays like this. In theory it could be an effective gauge of someone's willingness to develop multicultural competencies, which is crucial, but I have long suspected (and it has been more or less confirmed at least in this particular case by the OP) that they are actually more of a political litmus test than a genuine opportunity to express yourself with any real honesty or vulnerability on a complex and emotional topic, because there are predefined acceptable and unacceptable answers that are politically aligned. The irony of this of course is that it leads to homogeneity in our licensed professionals (or people like you and me who just know how to play the game that is expected of us)
 
Again, a great thread on an important topic. For folks who might wonder where some of the basis for psychologists' cultural competency comes from, I suggest starting with our ethics code, particularly Principle E: Respect for People's Rights and Dignity. Additionally, APA's Guidelines on Multicultural Education, Training, Research, Practice, and Organizational Change provides answers to some of these questions.

http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/

http://www.apa.org/pi/oema/resources/policy/multicultural-guidelines.aspx
 
calimich said:
Again, a great thread on an important topic. For folks who might wonder where some of the basis for psychologists' cultural competency comes from, I suggest starting with our ethics code, particularly Principle E: Respect for People's Rights and Dignity. Additionally, APA's Guidelines on Multicultural Education, Training, Research, Practice, and Organizational Change provides answers to some of these questions.

http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/

http://www.apa.org/pi/oema/resources/policy/multicultural-guidelines.aspx
Click to expand...

I've read this whole thread twice and I haven't actually seen anyone on any side of this discussion question the need for cultural competency. The questions that have been raised by myself are others are whether answering an essay question about diversity in a certain predetermined manner is a prerequisite for, or even related to, one's ability to become an ethical and effective practitioner for individuals from diverse backgrounds. In other words, if a Caucasian applicant does not include discussion or his/her privilege in an essay on diversity, does that mean they will have difficulty meeting or be unable to meet these ethical guidelines?
 
Circling back to the original question (since I'm going to offer a somewhat different take from others)...I think the key from an admissions standpoint is to phrase things such that the focus is on actions/experiences/views/etc. rather than simply identities. The APPIC question is actually a decent (albeit not perfect) example of the former.

The identity issue is I think what people were picking up on regarding it asking "which boxes can we check." Certainly I don't downplay the IMPORTANCE of identity, but I think its an inappropriate way to ask for that information as you had it worded. If I were answering that question now (as a white/male/privileged majority/etc.), the wording would encourage me to spin some nonsense about my childhood that provides little insight into who I am but gives them SOME box that they can check. Interestingly, I would decidedly NOT write about my privilege (which I will ultimately simply say "I acknowledge I have many advantages over others" and save any quibbling about the terminology, politics, etc. for another thread). In part because the question does not seem to invite that as an option. The person from <insert minority group> writes a token essay about their experiences as _____ and their desire to serve as a positive role model, etc. It may be true, it may not be true - the problem is the question was worded in a way that everyone will assume the right answer is some form of "I come from XYZ so I want to help XYZ, its important because ABC." Basically, you're likely to get a lot of BS from people of all cultures and not a lot of meaningful insights into their views with the question. Not because the topic is bad, just because the question is bad. I doubt you'll get enough variance for it to be helpful. A simple shift to asking about how their experiences/culture impact their views of mental health and psychology would likely give you much more traction if the goal is to glean insights into how people are likely to approach multicultural issues in treatment and gauge their openness to it.

Lastly, I do think it is important to recognize that for reasons too numerous to mention, these are often uncomfortable discussions. That doesn't mean they aren't important to have. I'd argue that the discomfort is simultaneously a symptom and a cause of many of the ongoing problems (for our field and at a broader political level). Confronting and overcoming discomfort is an important skill in this field. Nonetheless, if you want to have these discussions its important for people to feel safe disclosing. That is tough (though I'm not convinced impossible) in an admissions environment. It is somewhat easier in an anonymous online forum, but there is unquestionably still some impression management going on. I'd encourage people on both sides of the equation not to add to the problems by shutting people down, regardless of which side they're on. We have enough of this going on by both sides in the current political climate and its going to make things worse rather than better.
 
Jon Snow said:
Btw. If a "monoculture" is privilege, isn't that a strong rebuke of multi-culturalism? Wouldn't it then be logical to strive for a monoculture? I would argue the answer to the latter is yes, to an extent. That's the idea of the melting pot concept. And, it's also consistent with what we know about in group and out group psychology. The current slicing version of multiculturalism is ill considered. Basically, this particular variant of progressive ideology is not very bright. But, we should recognize that there are a lot of these people rolling around psychology and they have power. When you run in to a question like the op, they want to know that you adhere to their religion. Thus, your goal is to make them think that because otherwise, as they state, they won't allow you in their program.
Click to expand...
I spent a lot of time in my childhood and adolescence in the Middle East and Europe. I like American culture and have seen first hand how quickly our racial, ethnic, regional, differences evaporate when we are expatriates. I had way more in common with American expats of any stripe than I did with non-English speaking people who often lived in mud huts wore funny pajamas and pooped in the street. I well remember the cholera outbreak as the people would use water from the gutters to wash their dishes. Europe, of course, was not quite so different from America, but there were still things that we preferred about America and often the longer we stayed, the more we wanted to "go back home". I came back to the US to a university that prided itself on its diversity and I saw divisiveness and artificial barriers between groups of Americans that shocked me. What was especially shocking was that none of the people seemed to notice and especially the professors would tout how integrated it was. I was like the kid saying the emperor has no clothes. I don't know exactly when or how it became a sin to be an American, but this self-denigration of our own culture and elevation of other cultures and emphasis on differences has apparently become part of our culture especially in the coastal metropolitan areas.
 
Jon Snow said:
Exactly so. It's philosophically little different from religion and asking about religion is a perfectly reasonable parallel. disclosure: I am an atheist, and I am not arguing "if you get to promote your religion, I should get to promote mine. . ." I'm arguing neither is appropriate.
Click to expand...

That was my argument as well. Although I am a Christian and anecdotally do believe Christian values can be helpful in being an effective, empathetic provider I would never in a million years think to ask someone seeking entry into graduate school to write an essay on their spiritual beliefs, or furthermore to use said essay as any type of inclusion/exclusion criteria into the program based on my personal values. To do so, in my opinion, would be unprofessional and even unethical. I do not expect, or even necessarily want, everyone to align with my perspective because I actually do value diversity in areas that do not exclusively consist of race and sexual orientation.
 
smalltownpsych said:
I spent a lot of time in my childhood and adolescence in the Middle East and Europe. I like American culture and have seen first hand how quickly our racial, ethnic, regional, differences evaporate when we are expatriates. I had way more in common with American expats of any stripe than I did with non-English speaking people who often lived in mud huts wore funny pajamas and pooped in the street. I well remember the cholera outbreak as the people would use water from the gutters to wash their dishes. Europe, of course, was not quite so different from America, but there were still things that we preferred about America and often the longer we stayed, the more we wanted to "go back home". I came back to the US to a university that prided itself on its diversity and I saw divisiveness and artificial barriers between groups of Americans that shocked me. What was especially shocking was that none of the people seemed to notice and especially the professors would tout how integrated it was. I was like the kid saying the emperor has no clothes. I don't know exactly when or how it became a sin to be an American, but this self-denigration of our own culture and elevation of other cultures and emphasis on differences has apparently become part of our culture especially in the coastal metropolitan areas.
Click to expand...

This is off topic from the original post, but your last line really resonates with me. I feel like America has become like the stereotypical 90's sitcom dad to the rest of the world. Despite many other countries relying on any for any number of rather significant responsibilities, we have somehow (seemingly willingly) adopted an image of being bumbling, hapless, and simple and have become apparently the only culture who is completely open for criticism and even disrespect without the critic having to fear being labeled as politically incorrect or culturally insensitive. I don't get it.
 
Well, the bumbling and simple part is a self-inflicted wound. We've been going down a path of anti-intellectualism for some time now and openly eschew science and data at a national level more than most industrialized nations. We made that bed, now we get to sleep in it.
 
WisNeuro said:
Well, the bumbling and simple part is a self-inflicted wound. We've been going down a path of anti-intellectualism for some time now and openly eschew science and data at a national level more than most industrialized nations. We made that bed, now we get to sleep in it.
Click to expand...
In my opinion, one of the strengths of this country has been the anti-intellectual/anti-institutional aspects of our culture. Our heroes have typically tended to be the self-educated or street savvy or the solo person against the establishment. They can even be scientists and quite smart, but they are bucking the tide. I have worked with the blue collar folks side by side for much of my life and made a living by the sweat of my brow. There is often a simple wisdom there. Please don't confuse that with the recent elevation of vapid and ignorant celebrities in reality tv shows or the caricatures of the obese Walmart crowd. I would even argue that this dynamic might be a result of the emphasis on intellectualism in our culture as opposed to hard work and technical abilities and politically correct liberal arts studies as opppsed to real science being taught in the bastions of intellectualism known as universities.
 
WisNeuro said:
Umm, I'm not sure that we're talking about the same anti-intellectualism.
Click to expand...
Probably not. Are you referring to the anti-intellectual wings of the Republican party such as the fundamentalist christians and impoverished ill-educated Trump voters?
 
smalltownpsych said:
Probably not. Are you referring to the anti-intellectual wings of the Republican party such as the fundamentalist christians and impoverished ill-educated Trump voters?
Click to expand...

More talking of a mindset that openly derides any authority that comes from experience and knowledge on a subject matter. It has a deep historical basis. For example, go back and look at how Adlai Stevenson was portrayed during his presidential run. If you'd like a starting place, I'd recommend Hofstadter. The anti-intellectualism I am referring too is unequivocally not a good thing.
 
Jon Snow said:
Agree. Though I'm not sure the rest of the world has much of a leg to stand on comparing themselves to us.

Scientific output in the US is massive.
Click to expand...

Really depends on what metric you use. Peer reviewed journal output? Basic science and math literacy? Scientific growth vs stagnation? I'd argue that on the things that matter we are regressing, maybe stagnant at best. And, I only see that trend continuing in the negative direction.
 
Well, they are all complicated, written output included. The immigration policy can also be viewed at as actually increasing our literacy in some ways, e.g., the H1B program. Also, countries with similar or even more generous immigration policies still score much higher than we do in STEM type testing. As for money invested, education and research funding has dropped precipitously in recent years. Coupled with the ever decreasing funding to public higher education, we are backsliding. We are becoming dumber as a nation and are damn proud of it for some reason.
 
Gross spending vs % of GDP is a different issue. I believe we are like #9 or something on that list. I don't think we are disagreeing that we are regressing, but I imagine that our reasons for such are where the differences are.
 
Is it possible that the negative attitude toward America's culture be part of the problem? When i was a kid, we were all proud Americans who thought we were the greatest country on earth who were going to resolve racial differences and explore space. It just seems to have shifted these days and I am not always sure why. I think the whole make America great again is a reaction to this dynamic. Not necessarily a good reaction either.
 
Were you a kid in the 50's? Even so, anti-intellectualism was still alive and well in that time. Aside from that, being proud is one thing, as long as you actually have something to be proud about. In my mind, those who wholeheartedly believe in american exceptionalism are the same as the the kids getting participation trophies. "You're great just because!"
 
WisNeuro said:
Were you a kid in the 50's? Even so, anti-intellectualism was still alive and well in that time. Aside from that, being proud is one thing, as long as you actually have something to be proud about. In my mind, those who wholeheartedly believe in american exceptionalism are the same as the the kids getting participation trophies. "You're great just because!"
Click to expand...
The 60's and 70's. Watch it with the age comments buddy.
:slap:
You must be a millenial. They all seem to think that I am a baby boomer even though that is really my parents generation. Damn kids these days. 😀

It's funny thought that I see it the other way around and I don't necessarily think that being proud of America's accomplishments is the same as American exceptionalism which was never even a concept until the 90's or later. The world was much different during the cold war and the competition was fierce. I also don't think that being proud of the accomplishments means that we have to neglect the problems or mistakes of the past. Some of the problems we have are directly tied to our legacy of genocide both literal and cultural. Trust me, almost half my patients are Native American as I live by two of the largest reservations and I see the generational trauma. Meanwhile though, the Europeans who started the whole imperialistic subjugation of others and sought to control all other people because of their own belief in their inherit greatness are now held up as exemplars of socially aware consciousness and virtue.
 
WisNeuro said:
I'm in that gray area in between X and the millennials. Also, American exceptionalism as a concept goes back to the 19th century.
Click to expand...
I kind of guessed that, not millenials aren't quite old enough to be docs yet. I'm actually between the boomers and the X, myself.
On the other point, I think you are right about that and my recollection is that it was tied to the concept of manifest destiny? I was referring more to the more modern usage or revival of the term which I didn't really hear used much until more recently.
 
Manifest Destiny, Civil War, later brought up again in Stalin's time, the term has a resurgence about every generation. The resurgence this time would appear to be because a significant number of people no longer believe in it, although this group of people is not homogeneous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Freud’sMommy
PhD/PsyD .
Replies
0
Views
412
Freud’sMommy
Freud’sMommy
MCParent
APA no longer enforcing diversity criteria for accreditation
Replies
40
Views
8K
WisNeuro
WisNeuro
R
Diversity of Experiences
Replies
23
Views
2K
psych.meout
P
P
PhD/PsyD Internship application review - When do programs begin?
Replies
10
Views
2K
ThatPsyGuy
ThatPsyGuy
A
PhD/PsyD Nova Southeastern University PsyD - Interview Chances
Replies
10
Views
2K
aspiringtherapist20
A
Top Bottom