Protesting as a Psychologist

[R. Matey]

Mod note: Please try to remain civil and professional, everyone..

Thanks for the reminder.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[deleted480308]

You offer one article (2x) to support your position (ignoring the irony here that it is authored by a white male), and I will happily read it as I am unfamiliar with Lilienfield. I would hope, in the vain of being good, dutiful psychologists here, that you would investigate the numerous writings on the formulation of the term 'microaggresion' beginning in the 70s as an attempt to encapsulate these very real subtle racial expressions (the APA recommends Nadal, 2013; 2016, Sue, 2016, Lui & Quezada, 2019.

Why would their gender/race impact the validity of their point? Shouldn’t it rise/fall on merit alone and not their demographic

 

[Jegg]

"When you ain't got nothing, you got nothing to lose" -Bob Dylan

 

[AllyCat31]

The article @Fan_of_Meehl posted is a critical review of that literature. Perhaps you should read it prior to reacting and calling people names.

I did not engage in any name calling at any point, and I clearly state I will "happily read" the attached article. Rather, I have been very mindful of my tone and of being respectful throughout this entire exchange. I don't know if this was your intent, but you come across as very hostile.

 

[R. Matey]

Why would their gender/race impact the validity of their point? Shouldn’t it rise/fall on merit alone and not their demographic

I'll take this one.

Sue et al are all cultural relativists (check out this link for a description). From the perspective of Sue, an argument only has merit within the culture it arises from. So saying an argument is a "white male argument" means that it only has validity among white men. His four page rebuttal to Lilienfeld is essentially this single point. This is problematic within psychology because methods used to justify the existence his construct (e.g.: microaggressions) are decidedly from the same epistemological viewpoint he claims has no merit for the very people he is attempting to describe. Taking this position, Sue risks the Texas sharpshooter fallacy in that he uses the statistical paradigm when it fits his conclusions and then is dismissive of that same paradigm when his methods are criticized.

Let me be absolutely clear that my issue with the approach does not in any way whatsoever warrant dismissal of either systemic or subtle racism, sexism, etc. I strongly believe that these are absolutely real phenomena people experienced and, from an ethical perspective, I believe that something must be done like right now. The argument at hand is that these phenomena are probably better studied within the sub-fields of social cognition, social psychology, and cognitive psychology if we are to establish the construct more fully. Settling for anything less, regardless of how we feel about it, is scientifically irresponsible.

 

[R. Matey]

I did not engage in any name calling at any point, and I clearly state I will "happily read" the attached article. Rather, I have been very mindful of my tone and of being respectful throughout this entire exchange. I don't know if this was your intent, but you come across as very hostile.

It wasn't my intent to be hostile, but I'll admit I was irritated because when this happens:

(ignoring the irony here that it is authored by a white male)

I believe it threatens meaningful dialogue and it implies that a perspective is invalid based on something other than the merits of the argument as @sb247 pointed out. I translated this in my mind to be an ad hominem, which I perceive as essentially name-calling. To me, this isn't a fair or kind position to take. You must also understand that this appears that you've discredited a source prior to reading it.

 

[AllyCat31]

Why would their gender/race impact the validity of their point? Shouldn’t it rise/fall on merit alone and not their demographic

It wasn't my intent to be hostile, but I'll admit I was irritated because when this happens:



I believe it threatens meaningful dialogue and it implies that a perspective is invalid based on something other than the merits of the argument as @sb247 pointed out. I translated this in my mind to be an ad hominem, which I perceive is essentially name-calling. To me, this isn't a fair or kind position to take.

To clarify, I didn’t say the argument was invalid, I merely pointed out the irony. To me, it’s pretty big and impossible to ignore in this discussion. You don’t have to be a complete relativist but scientific inquiry does not exist in a vacuum.

I am not further engaging in this dialogue because we are coming from very different understandings, it’s evident that you are hostile toward your understanding of mine, and I don’t appreciate being labeled unfair or unkind.

 

[R. Matey]

I am not further engaging in this dialogue because we are coming from very different understandings, it’s evident that you are hostile toward your understanding of mine, and I don’t appreciate being labeled unfair or unkind.

That is your prerogative, but, if you are willing, can you then explain what you meant by irony?

Science may not exist in a vacuum, but it has certain starting assumptions that must be agreed upon. Chief among these is the assumption that any of us, no matter how popular our ideas may be, can be wrong. I question the claims of any person who claims to be a scientist but is not beholden to this value.

My intention wasn't to label someone as much as it was to describe my experience. You said my earlier comments came across as hostile. I'm returning that with describing my reaction to yours.

 

[AllyCat31]

That is your prerogative, but, if you are willing, can you then explain what you meant by irony?

Science may not exist in a vacuum, but it has certain starting assumptions that must be agreed upon. Chief among these is the assumptions that any of us, no matter how popular our ideas may be, can be wrong. I question the claims of any person who claims to be a scientist but is not beholden to this value.

My intention wasn't to label someone as much as it was to describe my experience. You said my earlier comments came across as hostile. I'm returning that with describing my reaction to yours.

I really meant what I said, I am 100% not interested in continuing this further and hashing out our individual assumptions and being educated on how wrong mine are. I’ve got to get to sleep because I’ve got a full day of helping folks tomorrow.

 

[WisNeuro]

I'll argue for aspects of social justice and reform all day long. But, as a scientist, I do have to find common ground with those who are asking why the research in this area is apparently beyond reproach or critical review. If we are to research this in a quantitative way, the methodology and findings NEED to be held to peer review, and need to be able to explain challenges to the data. This is how we better explain things. That critical review, at least in many areas, helps us refine our ideas, develop more rigorous studies, and develop better interventions and possibilities for reform.

In short, if we as a profession claim that we want to study this in a rigorous, quantitative way, that way must include all aspects of the scientific method. Part of that method is critical review. We throw that out, and we're not doing science. Also, if someone voices a critique that is based on methodology, or the statistics behind something, their demographics are irrelevant. I reject the notion that someone cannot ask a question in good faith based on those variables. Lillienfeld has a long track record of sound methodological and conceptual scholarly inquiry in the fields of personality and clinical psych. He's not some little known crank with fringe ideas that was brought in to make a point.

So, sure, refuse discussion if you'd like, that's your right. But, I usually find that I learn much more when I engage in active discussions with my family, friends, and colleagues who hold vastly different views than mine. Not only about where they are coming from, but also in having to critically analyze my own arguments. This is what we are trained to do, if we are properly trained psychologists anyway. Maybe it's time to use that training.

 

[AllyCat31]

I'll argue for aspects of social justice and reform all day long. But, as a scientist, I do have to find common ground with those who are asking why the research in this area is apparently beyond reproach or critical review. If we are to research this in a quantitative way, the methodology and findings NEED to be held to peer review, and need to be able to explain challenges to the data. This is how we better explain things. That critical review, at least in many areas, helps us refine our ideas, develop more rigorous studies, and develop better interventions and possibilities for reform.

In short, if we as a profession claim that we want to study this in a rigorous, quantitative way, that way must include all aspects of the scientific method. Part of that method is critical review. We throw that out, and we're not doing science. Also, if someone voices a critique that is based on methodology, or the statistics behind something, their demographics are irrelevant. I reject the notion that someone cannot ask a question in good faith based on those variables. Lillienfeld has a long track record of sound methodological and conceptual scholarly inquiry in the fields of personality and clinical psych. He's not some little known crank with fringe ideas that was brought in to make a point.

So, sure, refuse discussion if you'd like, that's your right. But, I usually find that I learn much more when I engage in active discussions with my family, friends, and colleagues who hold vastly different views than mine. Not only about where they are coming from, but also in having to critically analyze my own arguments. This is what we are trained to do, if we are properly trained psychologists anyway. Maybe it's time to use that training.

I chose to leave this discussion when it became obvious that this further engaging would not be productive, and I have no desire to continue as there are many other more important demands on my time. I'd like to remind you that this is a online forum and you know nothing about me, my career, what institute, my clinical or research expertise, or how I use my professional time. I agree that participating in discussion with people with different views in invaluable. I do this regularly, in the appropriate settings.

 

[WisNeuro]

One more thing, as this has happened several times in this thread. Decide if you want to argue in this arena as a layperson, or a psychologist. Several times, someone has asked for a citation or data, and the answer has been something to the effect of "go find it yourself." This isn't a discussion that you are having with a family member at a get together. We're all, presumably, professionals. If you are trying to make a scientific argument, and you cannot back it up with academic, peer-reviewed support, you really have no business making that argument in a scientific way. If you want to have amore theoretic discussion, that's fine.

Bottom line, let's continue to have a thoughtful discussion, let's just be better at it all around. We're scientists, well, most of us are anyway. So let's act like it,

 

[WisNeuro]

I chose to leave this discussion when it became obvious that this further engaging would not be productive, and I have no desire to continue as there are many other more important demands on my time. I'd like to remind you that this is a online forum and you know nothing about me, my career, what institute, my clinical or research expertise, or how I use my professional time. I agree that participating in discussion with people with different views in invaluable. I do this regularly, in the appropriate settings.

You're right, I don't know you, you don't know me. But, we both presumably know how the scientific method works.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

I'll argue for aspects of social justice and reform all day long. But, as a scientist, I do have to find common ground with those who are asking why the research in this area is apparently beyond reproach or critical review. If we are to research this in a quantitative way, the methodology and findings NEED to be held to peer review, and need to be able to explain challenges to the data. This is how we better explain things. That critical review, at least in many areas, helps us refine our ideas, develop more rigorous studies, and develop better interventions and possibilities for reform.

In short, if we as a profession claim that we want to study this in a rigorous, quantitative way, that way must include all aspects of the scientific method. Part of that method is critical review. We throw that out, and we're not doing science. Also, if someone voices a critique that is based on methodology, or the statistics behind something, their demographics are irrelevant. I reject the notion that someone cannot ask a question in good faith based on those variables. Lillienfeld has a long track record of sound methodological and conceptual scholarly inquiry in the fields of personality and clinical psych. He's not some little known crank with fringe ideas that was brought in to make a point.

So, sure, refuse discussion if you'd like, that's your right. But, I usually find that I learn much more when I engage in active discussions with my family, friends, and colleagues who hold vastly different views than mine. Not only about where they are coming from, but also in having to critically analyze my own arguments. This is what we are trained to do, if we are properly trained psychologists anyway. Maybe it's time to use that training.

And if people are arguing that they're using solid science to make their advocacy in this area more effective then the sorts of vigorous debates/exchanges that these posted articles represent only serve to STRENGTHEN those efforts in the long run.

I'm glad someone mentioned the microaggressions concept because it triggered my memory of Lilienfeld's 2017 articles (I only posted one [of three]) from that issue. It serves as what I perceive to be a rare instance where controversy/debate is openly and vigorously engaged in with respect to this subdomain of psychology. But these exchanges to me are the most interesting and useful displays of the instantiation of the philosophy of science in clinical psychology.

 

[AllyCat31]

You response is exactly why I have no interest in continuing. I've posted to this board a handful of times in the last decade I have been member, but in the last 48 hours, my skills as an academic have been questioned, my understanding of the scientific method has been questioned, my professionalism questioned, my ability to use my training questioned, and claims exaggerated: "Several times, someone has asked for a citation or data, and the answer has been something to the effect of "go find it yourself." I made one comment in which I was asked to provide a summary of decades of research, and I declined.

Again, this is an online forum. It is in my opinion not the appropriate place to engage in these types of conversations. For my part, I regret posting in the first place.

 

[WisNeuro]

I'm sorry to hear that, have a nice day and come on back if you change your mind.

 

[PikminOC]

Part of it is wanting charges for the other three officers who didn't intervene.

They have been charged

 

[Justanothergrad]

One more thing, as this has happened several times in this thread. Decide if you want to argue in this arena as a layperson, or a psychologist. Several times, someone has asked for a citation or data, and the answer has been something to the effect of "go find it yourself." This isn't a discussion that you are having with a family member at a get together. We're all, presumably, professionals. If you are trying to make a scientific argument, and you cannot back it up with academic, peer-reviewed support, you really have no business making that argument in a scientific way. If you want to have amore theoretic discussion, that's fine.

Bottom line, let's continue to have a thoughtful discussion, let's just be better at it all around. We're scientists, well, most of us are anyway. So let's act like it,

I'm all in favor of that. I'm just also all in favor of people reading the things that are posted and being able to understand it (i.e., suggesting that 2.5 increased risk liklihood is the same as equal risk, per the PNAS). Asking for citations that aren't read, understood, or considered isn't a legitimate strategy for scientific inquiry or discussion because it doesn't enable the type of academic discussion implied by the request for citation. I don't get paid to teach these courses, so my threshold for the level of working I'm willing to put in to educate those who can't interpret the science and statistics is pretty low.

 

[WisNeuro]

I'm all in favor of that. I'm just also all in favor of people reading the things that are posted and being able to understand it (i.e., suggesting that 2.5 increased risk liklihood is the same as equal risk, per the PNAS). Asking for citations that aren't read, understood, or considered isn't a legitimate strategy for scientific inquiry or discussion because it doesn't enable the type of academic discussion implied by the request for citation.

Wholeheartedly agree, if someone does not read or understand a citation that has been made, that is on them. But, when someone posts an in-depth article, which is dismissed outright, and then asks for additional information from which to understand a position, and is again dismissed outright, that's not having a discussion. It's simply saying "I'm right, because....reasons." So, let's all do a better job at debate, if we want to discuss the scientific merit of things. If you just want to debate things philosophically that's fine too, just don't then claim scientific support if you cannot provide such.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

A lot of things being said here just aren't so. There MAY be someone on this thread who actually 'asked or expected someone else to do their research (or their lit review) for them' but I know it wasn't me.

I saw a post by someone saying that if we wanted to be good professionals, then we should get to know the research literature on microaggressions.

This sparked a memory of Lilienfeld's work on critiquing/reviewing that literature from 2017 but--as I was on my phone at the time--I couldn't access the article (and figure I would post it later).

In the meantime, another poster provided (I think iin a balanced way) links to two articles (one article was essentially a 'rebuttal' article of Lilienfeld's 2017 article; the other was Lilienfeld's contemporary 2019 commentary in that same issue of that journal commenting on the rebuttal article).

So, when I got to my desktop, I looked up the original (well, one of the three) 2017 article by Lilienfeld and posted it for context (since this was the article being rebutted). I actually suppressed the impulse to post all three 2017 Lilienfeld articles (thinking that would be excessive) and just posted the most representative one that seemed to be the one most focused on in the other author's critique.

Then, out of the blue, I'm accused of posting the 2017 article twice (which I didn't) and criticized for not posting (I suppose) representative 'counter-articles' from the entirety of a 50-year period of research into microaggressions.

I essentially said that the person criticizing what I DIDN'T post was free to post whatever they wanted.

Then I'm accused of instructing someone to 'do my literature reviews for me' or somehow making demands on them.

This is unreal.

 

[WisNeuro]

A lot of things being said here just aren't so. There MAY be someone on this thread who actually 'asked or expected someone else to do their research (or their lit review) for them' but I know it wasn't me.

Then I'm accused of instructing someone to 'do my literature reviews for me' or somehow making demands on them.

My comments at this specifically were not aimed at you.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

My comments at this specifically were not aimed at you.

I never perceived that they were (at all). I was responding to insinuations (but mostly explicit statements) that others made about people complaining that folks were 'insisting that they do lit reviews for other people' because those folks had failed to post articles that they wanted posted.

 

[DynamicDidactic]

Again, this is an online forum. It is in my opinion not the appropriate place to engage in these types of conversations. For my part, I regret posting in the first place.

I like to think that many types of forums are useful ways to discuss these types of topics. There are advantages and disadvantages to anonymous discussions.

Perhaps a discussion about microaggressions deserves its own thread?

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Hi folks, let's try to stay on the topic(s) at hand rather than discussing reactions to, and/or intricacies of posts that might better be addressed via PM; this helps the discussion to remain a bit more inclusive. Thanks all.

 

[Justanothergrad]

Yes. But there are statistics and there are statistics. Understanding the 2.5 increased risk is a task. It doesn't mean that white supremacists are on the police force killing black people and that's why there's an increased risk (the encounter data suggest that's not the issue). To get to skin color is your causal factor takes some work and it is complicated. Understanding the contributors to the 2.5 times increased risk is critical to being able to address the problem.

Nope, nor was that what I implied.

 

[AllyCat31]

Wholeheartedly agree, if someone does not read or understand a citation that has been made, that is on them. But, when someone posts an in-depth article, which is dismissed outright, and then asks for additional information from which to understand a position, and is again dismissed outright, that's not having a discussion. It's simply saying "I'm right, because....reasons." So, let's all do a better job at debate, if we want to discuss the scientific merit of things. If you just want to debate things philosophically that's fine too, just don't then claim scientific support if you cannot provide such.

I keep getting pulled in (this is on me, completely owning this- insert Micheal Corleone gif) If you are referring to my contributions here, where are you getting this? I posted one critical comment:

You offer one article (2x) to support your position (ignoring the irony here that it is authored by a white male), and I will happily read it as I am unfamiliar with Lilienfield. I would hope, in the vain of being good, dutiful psychologists here, that you would investigate the numerous writings on the formulation of the term 'microaggresion' beginning in the 70s as an attempt to encapsulate these very real subtle racial expressions (the APA recommends Nadal, 2013; 2016, Sue, 2016).

I would like to point out that I 1) offered to read the article with which I was unfamiliar and 2) I asked (professionally) that other writings simply be considered, and I provided some suggested citations. I have reviewed all of my comments on this forum, and I don't see evidence of where I dismissed anyone's position outright (other that point out the author is white, which is not a dismissal but simply an observation) or demonstrated that I don't understand the scientific method. I did make it very clear that I do not have an interest in participating in an in depth debate on methodology here for valid reasons. I don't have the time available to give that type of discussion its required attention, and I don't feel an online forum is best suited for this type of debate. Please accept that. I respect that there are individuals who do want to engage in this, and I fully support this, but you are responding to things I simply didn't say, and making criticisms that aren't warranted based on the data you have. I really don't want to delete my account as I have enjoyed coming to the board on occasion over the years to read updates on certain items, but I'm nearing that point. I like the suggestion to start a separate thread to discuss this. It sounds like there are many folks who would enjoy this.

 

[WisNeuro]

My comments here are more generally applied to the thread than aimed at any one poster.

 

[deleted480308]

I chose to leave this discussion when it became obvious that this further engaging would not be productive, and I have no desire to continue as there are many other more important demands on my time. I'd like to remind you that this is a online forum and you know nothing about me, my career, what institute, my clinical or research expertise, or how I use my professional time. I agree that participating in discussion with people with different views in invaluable. I do this regularly, in the appropriate settings.

What setting would be more appropriate than one in which a largely educated and relevantly trained cohort can discuss and ask questions without fear of reprisal in the personal/professional life?

 

[R. Matey]

Mods, I'm curious if we should lock this thread? There's been no discussion of protesting for nearly a page now. I realize that I'm partially responsible for this.

 

[beginner2011]

Protests and everything associated with it (note, I do not consider looting to be associated with it - some likely is, but thats likely more a function of average human behavior than of anything else and data on those doing looting is clear) are a symptom of a long held issue America doesn't like to talk about. The idea that 'slavery/not being able to vote is gone/Jim Crow/etc is gone, stop feeling bad or being negatively impacted by those substantial and systematic experiences of racism' just doesn't jive with any part of what we know about (1) human coping or (2) persisting systemtic and general public racism. I grew up in the south and KKK gatherings and neo-nazi get togethers were very open 'secrets' and hearing 'jokes' about hanging African Americans or talk about how 'they need to stay with their kind' was common. These issues persistent consistently and regularly because the problem is not gone (as a timely for instance, a colleague just told me that they had to have police remove a noose from their neighborhood yesterday), and continues like it has for the last decades. We can treat the symptoms of the protest, but we had better identify the root cause (welp, that was easy - centuries of slavery, racism, and oppression and the enduring impacts of it) and change it, or settle into the idea that we're ok with the resulting inequity and continued oppression. I'm not for the later, so....

If we're going to start worrying about injury as a reason to stop the protests, there have been enough genocides, lynchings, and overt and covert attacks on minorities over the last century (and, you know, now) that I'm pretty sure we can focus on resolving the persistent and lingering issues associated with that and worry a bit less about a Target.

I think it would be a shame to see a thread that is so relevant right now locked becacuse we got a bit de-railed.

To me, this post from @Justanothergrad is the central issue. Of note, it received the most "Likes" by a factor of almost 2, and very little discussion. Unfortunately, the conversation was de-railed by several posters expressing skepticism about whether or not racism really affects police behavior since, "there aren't a lot of them," and the data isn't definitive. Then we ended up getting further de-railed by the outrage consequent to this skepticism, which I certainly contributed to, and professional blustering about methodology, which turned me off from the conversation.

Again:

We can treat the symptoms of the protest, but we had better identify the root cause (welp, that was easy - centuries of slavery, racism, and oppression and the enduring impacts of it) and change it, or settle into the idea that we're ok with the resulting inequity and continued oppression. I'm not for the later, so....

If we're going to start worrying about injury as a reason to stop the protests, there have been enough genocides, lynchings, and overt and covert attacks on minorities over the last century (and, you know, now) that I'm pretty sure we can focus on resolving the persistent and lingering issues associated with that and worry a bit less about a Target.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Mod Note: Hi again all. A thread to discuss the topic of microaggressions was created and is available here: Microaggressions

Let's see if we can steer back to the original topic of this thread going forward (e.g., as in the post above mine). Thanks!

 

[boomshakalaka]

One more thing, as this has happened several times in this thread. Decide if you want to argue in this arena as a layperson, or a psychologist. Several times, someone has asked for a citation or data, and the answer has been something to the effect of "go find it yourself." This isn't a discussion that you are having with a family member at a get together. We're all, presumably, professionals. If you are trying to make a scientific argument, and you cannot back it up with academic, peer-reviewed support, you really have no business making that argument in a scientific way. If you want to have amore theoretic discussion, that's fine.

Bottom line, let's continue to have a thoughtful discussion, let's just be better at it all around. We're scientists, well, most of us are anyway. So let's act like it,

Gosh, this part is so important and thank you for pointing this out, Wis.

 

[msc545]

Hi all,

Hypothetical question!

With all the protests going on, I’ve been thinking a lot about the implications of attending a protest as a psychologist. If I went and was protesting peacefully, but somehow got arrested, how would this look on a potential background check for a future job? Would you hire someone that was charged with a crime related to protesting? What would the implications be for licensure?

Just curious about everyone’s thoughts!

At least in California, if you get arrested (not necessarily convicted) for anything at all you are likely to have a lot of problems with the licensing board. You may not be able to get licensed at all. Be careful!

 

[foreverbull]

Inside the Mind of Jason Whitlock

Earlier this week, we reported that Jason Whitlock had left FS1. Whitlock spoke to Outkick on a variety of topics including his decision, life, Drew Brees, the future of the industry, George Floyd, and much more: The two biggest winners in media this year are Dave Portnoy and Joe Rogan. Both of...

www.outkickthecoverage.com

What is the point of posting this interview and who is this man?

 

[beginner2011]

What is the point of posting this interview and who is this man?

So I guess we've decided that this conversation is open to "layperson" discussions.

Social media, its primary influencers, the blogosphere and the mainstream media all seem determined to promote irrational fear. They seem to want all people emotional and irrational. Irrational and emotional people surrender their rights more easily than rational and non-emotional people. Irrational and emotional people, especially when 40 million of them are newly unemployed, will choose rioting, violence and looting rather than a strategic response to injustice. Irrational and emotional people will unwittingly allow themselves to be used as cover for the violent, destructive behavior of anarchists. Irrational and emotional people will more easily buy propaganda spewed by communist countries trying to destabilize America.

Yea, the people protesting in the streets, being shot by rubber bullets, and hit with tear gas are "surrendering their rights more easily" than the "rational and non-emotional people," who are staying home and discouraging people from protesting.

There's a ton of paranoia, weak logic, jumping to conclusions, ignoring important parts, oversimplifying, and overgeneralizing in this interview alone. I can't imagine turning to this guy as a source of useful social commentary.

As a side note, I really loved The Last Dance. It's hilarious to me that this guy explains people's nostalgia, appreciation for narrative, and high level athletics as everyone being thirsty for "masculine energy."

 

[psychlife19]

“So I guess we've decided that this conversation is open to "layperson" discussions.“

I’m thirsty for masculine energy but for different reasons *cough*

Also, I am not participating in this board but I have been reading all the posts and this is a great learning opportunity! I am learning about intersection of research and politics/public policy, research just for research’s sake vs research to aim at solving a specific problem, personal experience (case study?) vs quantitative data arguments, etc. so I guess I wanted to say thanks. Sometimes when these types of discussions happen in real life, it takes me a little while to really take in and process everything vs. being able to read it.

 

[psychstudent5]

Inside the Mind of Jason Whitlock

Earlier this week, we reported that Jason Whitlock had left FS1. Whitlock spoke to Outkick on a variety of topics including his decision, life, Drew Brees, the future of the industry, George Floyd, and much more: The two biggest winners in media this year are Dave Portnoy and Joe Rogan. Both of...

www.outkickthecoverage.com

you cannot be any more obvious...Jason Whitlock?!? loooooooooooool

The guy who is the epitome of internalized racism.

I sincerely hope you do not provide any psychological services to anyone who is non-white and that you do not advise/teach/train people of color.

 

[psychstudent5]

1). I'm not agreeing with Whitlock. Posted that because of the need that people be able to discuss ideas without being blown to hell and that's what I thought was interesting in that interview. You know like being accused of being a bigot for no particular reason. I don't know Whitlock's history other than what was in his bio that I googled.

2. That's really insulting. And, to me is exactly why I posted it.

I actually edited out that piece cause I think I went too far on that end. However, I do stand by everything else I said. I do not think you should be in a position to educate and train people of color based on your comments in this thread and the other one.

I don't have anything further to say to you.

 

[beginner2011]

I read an interesting interview with the author of a book (The End of Policing) who suggested that the problem (dissatisfaction with the behavior of police) has a lot do with the fact that police are being tasked with duties that are outside of the scope of their training and expertise. The current response to protests is an example of such.

When you're looking around at what's happening right now, what are the things that you think people need to understand to really process what is going on around the country?

Well, I think the police are making the argument for us, right? People started this conversation by saying policing is out of control; they're not making the situation better. They have not been reformed. Well, now all you have to do is turn on the nightly news and see how true that is.

The level of aggression and unnecessary escalation is stark evidence of how unreformed policing is, and I argue how unreformable it is. The question is whether or not people will take it to the next step and ask the tough political questions. Why are our mayors turning this over to the police to manage? Why are we using curfews instead of having conversations? Why are we throwing protesters in prison instead of trying to figure out what's driving all of this anger?

Full interview here: How Much Do We Need The Police?

 

[foreverbull]

@Jon Snow
I’m not sure how cancel culture got brought into the conversation, but if we’re leaving the research realm and just posting videos and opinions, I’ll just respond by saying that this seems like a bit of a deflection from the topic, unless you were trying to find a black dissenter like some white folks in my Facebook posting Candace Owens memes/quotes to make the point that there's a black person who feels the same way that conservative white folks do.

Of course there will be a couple of visible folks in a group disagreeing with a movement of any kind (Phyllis Schlafly spearheading the anti-ERA campaign, etc.), but should that be used to dismiss an entire movement protesting police brutality or racism (same for using cancel culture to dismiss movements)? Because white folks will and have used anything to discredit/dismiss the experiences of marginalized groups (and are doing so right now)—including using members of the groups themselves (see recent Roe v. Wade news articles—“Jane Roe” changed her stance on abortion after being paid to do so by conservative groups).

One of the easiest ways to deny/discredit racism/marginalization is to point to the most extreme voice or individuals who engage in the most extreme behaviors in the movement (or find the rare but very visible dissenter, as I mentioned before) to discredit all of it. Hence why some white folks in my Facebook feed are focusing on looting and rioting and ignoring the whole police brutality and systemic racism issue that led to this point—it’s easy and guilt-free to say that it’s bad people doing bad things. It’s much harder for white folks to acknowledge that the world and how it operates is not anywhere near as fair as we pretend it is (the “just-world” phenomenon in social psychology can explain a lot of the reactions from white folks we see—we are intrinsically motivated to see the world as fair and just, particularly when it benefits us to do so as the group with the most power in society). The harder work is white folks admitting that we have benefitted from being white in this country and educating ourselves by reading about black perspectives/experiences, listening to our black community, etc., and I don't mean the few visible dissenters like the Candace Owenses of the world or the folks who downplay/deny/deflect, but people who are sharing their day-to-day experiences of racism.

Here's an interview with journalist Ta-Nehisi Coates, as a counterpoint (Between the World and Me is on my reading list):

Why Ta-Nehisi Coates is hopeful

The author of Between the World and Me on why this isn’t 1968, the Colin Kaepernick test, police abolition, nonviolence and the state, and more.

www.vox.com

 

[R. Matey]

I read an interesting interview with the author of a book (The End of Policing) who suggested that the problem (dissatisfaction with the behavior of police) has a lot do with the fact that police are being tasked with duties that are outside of the scope of their training and expertise. The current response to protests is an example of such.



Full interview here: How Much Do We Need The Police?

I worked with police a number of years ago when I worked with more severe presentations of mental illness. I witnessed that they were asked to do things that they are completely unqualified to do. How some of those mental health calls were handled still make me shudder.

 

[beginner2011]

Here's an interview with journalist Ta-Nehisi Coates, as a counterpoint (Between the World and Me is on my reading list):

Why Ta-Nehisi Coates is hopeful

The author of Between the World and Me on why this isn’t 1968, the Colin Kaepernick test, police abolition, nonviolence and the state, and more.

www.vox.com

I agree with what I perceive to be the primary point behind the protests (end police brutality/racism). I initially questioned the protest need now because of Covid and because the response to the killing was nearly universal and justice appeared to be moving swiftly. Further, I perceive that the protest had broadened to include other political issues ("Eat the rich"). I watched the Floyd video. It appeared awful and heartless. I believe the quote I had earlier in the thread stated "depraved."

Ezra Klein
I want to talk about the way we talk about rioting and disorder. I think there’s a language breakdown here. The police, in a given place, are an institution. You can find their address, call their front desk. In terms of protests, “rioters” are not. It’s a term that encompasses many different people doing many different things for many different reasons — some of them are engaged in political protest, some [are] using protests as cover, some may be trying to discredit protests, some are just chaos tourists, and so on. You can’t call up the head of the rioters and ask about the strategy.

Ta-Nehisi Coates
I think one of the mistakes made is to view “rioting” or “uprising” as political strategy. What you often see is this comparison between what’s happening right now or what happened in Baltimore or Ferguson with, let’s say, Martin Luther King in Selma. And people will say, what is most effective? But that’s not what rioting actually is.

If you look at communities of human beings as natural creatures who tend to react a certain way when put under X number of pressures, I think it becomes a lot more sensible. What happens to a community of people who are policed arbitrarily and with violence, not just in the moment, but historically? Whose great-grandfathers and grandmothers can tell stories of police officers either not stopping lynchings or jumping into lynchings? They see law enforcement as illegitimate, and other members of the community as more legitimate than cops.

And then you see like a video like that, and that could have been you or your son or your husband. What is the natural reaction? Is it to form a committee and present a list of possible reforms? Is it what we will call “nonviolent protest”? Well, we tried that — that was Colin Kaepernick taking the knee. And he was driven out of his job and out of his profession, not just by the NFL but by the president of the United States. So what is the natural reaction? Black people are human beings too. They get angry. They get sad. They get depressed. They have natural reactions to things.

I think it bears repeating that it was only weeks ago that we had armed white men showing up at the Michigan legislature, literally shutting the organs of democracy down, and we saw a very different reaction to that. Not just by the police, but by the White House and by the larger society. And that wasn’t the first time. I think of the Bundy standoff, where federal troops decided to retreat. So I think at the root of this is an inability to extend the kind of humanity that we extend to white people in this country to people who are not white, and specifically to black people.


Edit to add re: kneeling during the anthem:

Ezra Klein
You have this discussion in Between the World and Me about learning over and over again in school about the civil rights movement and nonviolence. And you have this line that I’ve been thinking about this week: “Why were they showing this to us? Why were only our heroes nonviolent? ... How could the schools valorize men and women whose value society actively scorned?”

I think that’s a profound point here. It’s one thing to preach nonviolence if you yourself are nonviolent, but it’s another thing to preach nonviolence if it’s a basically unrealizable standard that you make other people meet in order to be taken seriously, but don’t follow yourself.

Ta-Nehisi Coates
Even when I was writing Between the World and Me, and certainly more so since then, I have come to believe in the deep moral case most effectively made by King for nonviolence: that you actually don’t want to repeat what the people who are oppressing you are doing. That when you do violence to someone else, there is something corrupting about it. That’s a very true thing. But often it is the very people who squelch nonviolent protest who then turn around and preach nonviolence.

It is simply not the case that over the course of American history, nonviolent protest has been met with open arms and applauded by the powers that be. People forget that day that King got stoned in Cicero. They pretend that when King was leading these movements against Jim Crow, he was somehow the most popular man in the country. He was hated. He was hated by white people all through the country. He was hated at the very highest levels of law enforcement in this country.

So the question is not what is the reaction to nonviolence in the midst of a riot, in the midst of a Ferguson or Minneapolis or Baltimore. It’s what is the reaction to nonviolence when it happened? How many of these people stood up and said, yes, we really applaud the way that Colin Kaepernick is going about this struggle?

---

@Jon Snow I hope you take the time to read the interview. I think a lot of your gripes are discussed.

@foreverbull thanks for sharing this interview. I haven't finished it yet, but so far it's fantastic. I really appreciate the way Coates approaches these issues.

 

[deleted480308]

Ezra Klein
I want to talk about the way we talk about rioting and disorder. I think there’s a language breakdown here. The police, in a given place, are an institution. You can find their address, call their front desk. In terms of protests, “rioters” are not. It’s a term that encompasses many different people doing many different things for many different reasons — some of them are engaged in political protest, some [are] using protests as cover, some may be trying to discredit protests, some are just chaos tourists, and so on. You can’t call up the head of the rioters and ask about the strategy.

Ta-Nehisi Coates
I think one of the mistakes made is to view “rioting” or “uprising” as political strategy. What you often see is this comparison between what’s happening right now or what happened in Baltimore or Ferguson with, let’s say, Martin Luther King in Selma. And people will say, what is most effective? But that’s not what rioting actually is.

If you look at communities of human beings as natural creatures who tend to react a certain way when put under X number of pressures, I think it becomes a lot more sensible. What happens to a community of people who are policed arbitrarily and with violence, not just in the moment, but historically? Whose great-grandfathers and grandmothers can tell stories of police officers either not stopping lynchings or jumping into lynchings? They see law enforcement as illegitimate, and other members of the community as more legitimate than cops.

And then you see like a video like that, and that could have been you or your son or your husband. What is the natural reaction? Is it to form a committee and present a list of possible reforms? Is it what we will call “nonviolent protest”? Well, we tried that — that was Colin Kaepernick taking the knee. And he was driven out of his job and out of his profession, not just by the NFL but by the president of the United States. So what is the natural reaction? Black people are human beings too. They get angry. They get sad. They get depressed. They have natural reactions to things.

I think it bears repeating that it was only weeks ago that we had armed white men showing up at the Michigan legislature, literally shutting the organs of democracy down, and we saw a very different reaction to that. Not just by the police, but by the White House and by the larger society. And that wasn’t the first time. I think of the Bundy standoff, where federal troops decided to retreat. So I think at the root of this is an inability to extend the kind of humanity that we extend to white people in this country to people who are not white, and specifically to black people.


Edit to add re: kneeling during the anthem:

Ezra Klein
You have this discussion in Between the World and Me about learning over and over again in school about the civil rights movement and nonviolence. And you have this line that I’ve been thinking about this week: “Why were they showing this to us? Why were only our heroes nonviolent? ... How could the schools valorize men and women whose value society actively scorned?”

I think that’s a profound point here. It’s one thing to preach nonviolence if you yourself are nonviolent, but it’s another thing to preach nonviolence if it’s a basically unrealizable standard that you make other people meet in order to be taken seriously, but don’t follow yourself.

Ta-Nehisi Coates
Even when I was writing Between the World and Me, and certainly more so since then, I have come to believe in the deep moral case most effectively made by King for nonviolence: that you actually don’t want to repeat what the people who are oppressing you are doing. That when you do violence to someone else, there is something corrupting about it. That’s a very true thing. But often it is the very people who squelch nonviolent protest who then turn around and preach nonviolence.

It is simply not the case that over the course of American history, nonviolent protest has been met with open arms and applauded by the powers that be. People forget that day that King got stoned in Cicero. They pretend that when King was leading these movements against Jim Crow, he was somehow the most popular man in the country. He was hated. He was hated by white people all through the country. He was hated at the very highest levels of law enforcement in this country.

So the question is not what is the reaction to nonviolence in the midst of a riot, in the midst of a Ferguson or Minneapolis or Baltimore. It’s what is the reaction to nonviolence when it happened? How many of these people stood up and said, yes, we really applaud the way that Colin Kaepernick is going about this struggle?

---

@Jon Snow I hope you take the time to read the interview. I think a lot of your gripes are discussed.

@foreverbull thanks for sharing this interview. I haven't finished it yet, but so far it's fantastic. I really appreciate the way Coates approaches these issues.

I think coates is falsely painting these protests as “black” and the michigan/bundy events as “white”.

i also think it’s important to note the michigan folks didn’t commit any violence/destruction (that I’m aware of, didn’t they just show up and yell then go home?). Even the bundys (which was a legit, we’re willing to fight you if you start shooting situation) didn’t start hurting officers or burning down private property during the standoff

 

[beginner2011]

I read it. I’ve read Coates before. It does show how dramatically different the underlying assumptions are in interpreting modern events.

consider this.

Redirect Notice

www.google.com

This is not dissimilar from where I’ve been trying to argue.

disclaimer: I don’t know this author. i don’t know if he has weird pics or anything else that might suggest he’s bad to quote.

a quote:
“Given the genuine severity of the Trump threat, some readers of this essay may wonder, why devote energy to picking over the virtue and solidarity signaling of the left? Quite simply because getting this kind of thinking wrong exacerbates the very inequality it seeks to counteract. In the most memorable sentence in “The First White President,” Mr. Coates declares, “Whereas his forebears carried whiteness like an ancestral talisman, Trump cracked the glowing amulet open, releasing its eldritch energies.”

I have spent the past six months poring over the literature of European and American white nationalism, in the process interviewing noxious identitarians like the alt-right founder Richard Spencer. The most shocking aspect of Mr. Coates’s wording here is the extent to which it mirrors ideas of race — specifically the specialness of whiteness — that white supremacist thinkers cherish”

And, in my opinion, that’s right. That is I think a hazard of the CRT framework. But, perhaps I’m wrong.

What is right? What is a "hazard of the CRT framework"? You'll need to be more specific.

I remember reading Williams' article back in 2017. He's a compelling polemicist. Under these lights, though, his critique looks incredibly vapid and thin. I find Coates' explanation of current circumstances as outlined in the interview to integrate multiple sources of information, to be consistent with the facts, and to be useful in my efforts to understand the experiences of people of color.

I think coates is falsely painting these protests as “black” and the michigan/bundy events as “white”.

i also think it’s important to note the michigan folks didn’t commit any violence/destruction (that I’m aware of, didn’t they just show up and yell then go home?). Even the bundys (which was a legit, we’re willing to fight you if you start shooting situation) didn’t start hurting officers or burning down private property during the standoff

I know you well enough by now to know better than to waste my efforts trying to direct your attention to a reality you don't want to see. Hello! Have a good weekend.

 

[deleted480308]

What is right? What is a "hazard of the CRT framework"? You'll need to be more specific.

I remember reading Williams' article back in 2017. He's a compelling polemicist. Under these lights, though, his critique looks incredibly vapid and thin. I find Coates' explanation of current circumstances as outlined in the interview to integrate multiple sources of information, to be consistent with the facts, and to be useful in my efforts to understand the experiences of people of color.




I know you well enough by now to know better than to waste my efforts trying to direct your attention to a reality you don't want to see. Hello! Have a good weekend.

By all means, show me what I’m missing

 

[foreverbull]

I read it. I’ve read Coates before. It does show how dramatically different the underlying assumptions are in interpreting modern events.

consider this.

Redirect Notice

www.google.com

This is not dissimilar from where I’ve been trying to argue.

disclaimer: I don’t know this author. i don’t know if he has weird pics or anything else that might suggest he’s bad to quote.

a quote:
“Given the genuine severity of the Trump threat, some readers of this essay may wonder, why devote energy to picking over the virtue and solidarity signaling of the left? Quite simply because getting this kind of thinking wrong exacerbates the very inequality it seeks to counteract. In the most memorable sentence in “The First White President,” Mr. Coates declares, “Whereas his forebears carried whiteness like an ancestral talisman, Trump cracked the glowing amulet open, releasing its eldritch energies.”

I have spent the past six months poring over the literature of European and American white nationalism, in the process interviewing noxious identitarians like the alt-right founder Richard Spencer. The most shocking aspect of Mr. Coates’s wording here is the extent to which it mirrors ideas of race — specifically the specialness of whiteness — that white supremacist thinkers cherish”

And, in my opinion, that’s right. That is I think a hazard of the CRT framework. But, perhaps I’m wrong.

If you want me to post others' responses critical of Jason Whitlock and things he has said publicly, I'm happy to do so. You have posted criticisms by two black folks of the current protest/movement and/or an anti-racist black journalist, so I’m trying to understand why and what your overall point is in doing so.

If you're trying to make the point that extremism squelches discussion and is bad for dialogue and relations between people just in general, I don't disagree, but I don't think I'm getting a clear idea of what you're actually trying to argue (unless it's just that you think "cancel culture"/extreme opinions aren't helping to end racism and/or are counterproductive?).

I read the article and disagree with Williams-I don't think Ta-Nehisi Coates is inadvertently helping perpetuate the white supremacy that he is speaking out against by overemphasizing the power of race in American life. In the interview I posted, Coates was actually optimistic that more white folks are understanding how racism affects black folks in this country.

Our entire field accepts the premise that environmental influences affect us. It’s obvious that some here will vehemently argue and debate about how much the environment affects our development/experience in life in any given domain, including how much our reality in this country is shaped by our race/ethnicity.

So what are you trying to say here?

 

[Justanothergrad]

Wholeheartedly agree, if someone does not read or understand a citation that has been made, that is on them. But, when someone posts an in-depth article, which is dismissed outright, and then asks for additional information from which to understand a position, and is again dismissed outright, that's not having a discussion. It's simply saying "I'm right, because....reasons." So, let's all do a better job at debate, if we want to discuss the scientific merit of things. If you just want to debate things philosophically that's fine too, just don't then claim scientific support if you cannot provide such.

All for it. But the bar for where I stay in a discussion isn't the floor. I'm not willing to 'debate' basic facts like gravity, the spherical nature of the planet, or the disproportionate adverse and negative experiences that minorities experience in this country. We can agree to call it academic laziness, or reasonable online etiquette - either way. Not being able to provide evidence and not being willing to are different things. The end result is similar, but not acknowledging and rejecting poorly founded ideas doesn't provide them with equal merit ipso facto. Either way, I agree with you about good debate. Anyway, enough siderailing of the conversation - I'll reiterate my stance below. It can be called a philosophic position, because I'm not willing or interested in 'debating' if racial inequity exists.




There are two things- there are protesters and there are rioters. These things can overlap, or they can occur separately. I would be willing to wager (and the data I've seen suggest) that the rioters (regardless of what group or values they represent - white supremacy, antifa, anarchy, anti-government, whatever) represent a minority of the totality of protesters given the size and breadth of protests occurring across the nation. Yes, rioters are destructive and distracting from the issue(s) at hand. Some of them intend this as their purpose (either agitating or just taking advantage to cause destruction and loot), others achieve it out of frustration with the system as a natural response to the issue that led to the protests initially (some for racial equity issues, others with police and their militarization). Either way, the riots distract and are a problem. And, either way, protests remain symptomatic to the larger issue of racial inequity and tension that are under so much of the country's skin. Focusing wholly on the riots which represent a minority of protesters and includes those composed of both sides (pro / against the protests) fails to help the issue at hand. And there is an issue at hand that remains needing to be addressed.

To be clear, racism (overt and systematic) is an issue. This means that the system isn't setup for generally equitable starting positions across ethnic groups (% at poverty level, % of children needing free/reduce price lunch, parental education level, % incarcerated, average income, etc) and that can setup between group tensions and influence disproportionate negative outcomes. This also means that some people are racist, and they may be cops (or bartenders, or cosco managers, or whatever and any other job). There is a fairly strong relationship between authoritarian views and racism (this doesn't mean conservatives are racist, its the focus on authoritarian aspects of conservatism specifically - its the not all squares are rectangles argument). Some jobs have more authoritarian bents than others (e.g., military, police), particularly those with a focus on punishment. So yes, there are likely racial biases in those professions (generally because racism exists, and more pronounced because of the political and cultural ideology within those groups that serve to reinforce those beliefs [either overtly, or covertly]). It's my estimation (and this part I haven't done extensive research on), that increased policed militarization has made the racism appear more pronounced than it is in these professions and that behaviors not racist in motivation are more easily interpreted as such. Its also why Trump's approach of strong arming and militarization advocacy isn't working effectively to quell tensions (see, doing the exact opposite) - it feeds into the underlying perceptions.

Either way, racial inequity is an issue and will continue to be so long as the gaps exist as they do.

 

[psykduck]

Let’s be honest here. There are not thousands. Most are mixed result or having variance between race and what type of interaction occurred. One of the newest and biggest even stated that they believe there is more force on AA than whites but the conclusion was not for sure. Read it yourself. The one in question was by Roland fryer.

This paper is relatively new and states there needs to be more data. I am not trying to argue there are not differences but after spending 30 minutes searching and reading the results are dismal. We need more studies.

The topic IS up for debate and discussion. Whether you like it or not. Now please provide indisputable evidence or admit there are many gaps in the literature with some studies not being significant and others leaning either way. As a psychologist you should be more akin to cruising through studies.

Is it possible to make an unbiased judgement after a brief 30 minute search and review? What syntax did you use and what database did you search?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

 

[psykduck]

I did not engage in any name calling at any point, and I clearly state I will "happily read" the attached article. Rather, I have been very mindful of my tone and of being respectful throughout this entire exchange. I don't know if this was your intent, but you come across as very hostile.

I reread your comment so many times looking for the "name calling". Its bananas. You have been professional.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk