Should psychology be political?

[50960]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I personally feel that organized psychology should not have political alliances, and oppose APA for actively having such clear political biases. Does any other health profession have such an organized political stance? We have discussed this before, but I feel it should be talked about more because there are alot of psychology students being taught that to be a psychologist you must have certain political beliefs. 👎

 

[Psyclops]

I vote for no political affiliation. I don't think APA should endorse any party or candidate. Unless........becoming political is in the professions best interest. For example, if one party were to consistently cuts funding for psycholgical research, then why not support the other?

 

[Psyclops]

The more I think abou this, I would think they might want to get involved politically at certain times. For example, if I were an evolutionary psychologist, I might have a professional political stance regardless of my personal views.

 

[psychanon]

I don't think that psychology should be partial to a particular political ideology, but I do think that we should advocate for the integration of empirical findings into policy decisions. For example, if psychological research shows that abstinence-only sex education programs don't prevent teen pregnancy, or that using cell phone headsets doesn't reduce car accidents (and so on), psychologists should encourage lawmakers to incorporate those findings into public policy.

 

[psychanon]

Has anyone read this article? Any comments?

Redding, R.E. (2001). Sociopolitical diversity in psychology: The case for pluralism. American Psychologist, 56, 205-215.

Personally, I think it's largely crap, especially the part about affirmative action for conservatives in psychology grad programs. But I'd be interested to hear others' opinions.

 

[Psyclops]

I think AA is a crap concept in general, good intentioned perhaps but bad in practice, furthermore the Supreme Court has found that it is unconstitutional. I don't know if any remember this past year, but the APA had on it's website that they had called for graduate programs to start admitting more males, apparently there was a dearth of them in competitive programs. Being a male, I would still say that if the best candidates continue to be females, they should continue to be admitted, even if they are overrepresented given the poulation's makeup.

 

[50960]

Great post psyclops!

 

[Sanman]

I think AA is a crap concept in general, good intentioned perhaps but bad in practice, furthermore the Supreme Court has found that it is unconstitutional. I don't know if any remember this past year, but the APA had on it's website that they had called for graduate programs to start admitting more males, apparently there was a dearth of them in competitive programs. Being a male, I would still say that if the best candidates continue to be females, they should continue to be admitted, even if they are overrepresented given the poulation's makeup.

While I generally agree that AA is a crappy concept, I may have to disagree with you in a small way. Given the competitive nature of most clinical programs, it would be my belief that many more well qualified applicants exist then are offered admission into clinical programs. I believe that it is the responsibility of the psychology establishment to ensure that a diverse set of interests and groups of individuals are available toserve the public interest. If we don't allow males in, does that mean that penile and testicular group therapies are only going to be run by women? If we don't let African Americans in, does that mean that all of the couselors at a historically black college or university will be white? Obviously we can't control the paths graduates take and I don't believe we should legislate it, but there is nothing wrong with addressing the issue and taking a stance as long as others are free to disagree.

This, by the way, is coming from a minority male. However, being Asian, it really hasn't helped me that much.

 

[Psyclops]

Theoretically, if you had two candidates who had equal qualifications, except for one of the traditional diversity differences (e.g., gender, ethnicity, etc), how would you make your dverse interest choice? What would the criteria be for "diverse"? Ethnicity? Or would it have to be life experiences?

Although I think your post is well intentioned, I think there are some problems with your arguements. For one, what's wrong with a prostate cancer group being led by a woman? Or a person being counseled by someone of a different ethnicity? It's like saying a gynecologist can't be a man, or a urologist a woman.

Programs do already screen for the paths that students are supposedly going to take. PhD programs are interested in taking students who are interested in academic careers. Try telling them you are interested in purely practice. People don't like that. And your point of view supposes that blacks will run out and treat blacks, and men will run out and treat men. If that is their interest they might, in which case they will be selected by advisors who are interested in mens and minority mental health, regardless of the applicant's gender or race (hopefully).

 

[Sanman]

Theoretically, if you had two candidates who had equal qualifications, except for one of the traditional diversity differences (e.g., gender, ethnicity, etc), how would you make your dverse interest choice? What would the criteria be for "diverse"? Ethnicity? Or would it have to be life experiences?

I can't really get into a specific hierarchy of how to pick individuals because every case will be different I might suggest taking a minority student interested in working with urban, low income, minority individuals over another student. However, I might suggest taking a caucasian individuals who was interested in and qualified working with deaf individuals instead of a minority applicant whose interest was something more mainsteam and not in need of more qualified providers.

lthough I think your post is well intentioned, I think there are some problems with your arguements. For one, what's wrong with a prostate cancer group being led by a woman? Or a person being counseled by someone of a different ethnicity? It's like saying a gynecologist can't be a man, or a urologist a woman.

I never said that such groups could not be led by a woman or one of a different ethnicity, respectively. My point was that by nit mking diversity a concern, individuals who may be uncomfortable discussing issues with someone who may not relate as well and by not training a diverse group of individuals, you are limiting their choice of providers to ONLY the group that cannot relate as well or that the client is not comfortable with. These are barriers that may stop some individuals from seeking needed treatment.

And your point of view supposes that blacks will run out and treat blacks, and men will run out and treat men. If that is their interest they might, in which case they will be selected by advisors who are interested in mens and minority mental health, regardless of the applicant's gender or race (hopefully).

Well from my understanding of research into this area (and, no, I am not going to produce specific studies; I have better things to do) minority individuals and even those from the affirmative action era are more likely to go into these much needed areas then other individuals. Will all of them? No. Is it a perfect system? No. I am simply suggesting that as a professional body we need to make an effort. Your suggestions are definitely correct for research based programs. Ironically it is a bit of a catch 22 since not many people research some much needed areas of psychology and thus students want to contribute are rejected due to the lack of advisors. However, I am also speaking about more clinically oriented programs as well.

 

[Psyclops]

I can't really get into a specific hierarchy of how to pick individuals because every case will be different I might suggest taking a minority student interested in working with urban, low income, minority individuals over another student.

To play the devil's advocate to this suggestion I would have to say, don't you think that is kind of racist? Essentially what this suggests is that your would be picking candidates based on the color of their skin. So that begs the question, why would anyone want to pick candidates based on the color of their skin, or any other silly atrbute? But that question leads us into your next points.....

My point was that by nit mking diversity a concern, individuals who may be uncomfortable discussing issues with someone who may not relate as well and by not training a diverse group of individuals, you are limiting their choice of providers to ONLY the group that cannot relate as well or that the client is not comfortable with. These are barriers that may stop some individuals from seeking needed treatment.

I think that this is another dangerous assumption, that one must be of the same color, gender, or life situation to relate to the patient. If the patient feels that way to the extent that they will not seek treatment, they have a problem, I agree. Mental health "clients" will come up with any number of reasons not to seek treatment, or to avoid particular practitioners, many of them are bogus. I think we need to strive to get over the superficial differences that we assume would make it difficult for two people to relate.

Well from my understanding of research into this area (and, no, I am not going to produce specific studies; I have better things to do) minority individuals and even those from the affirmative action era are more likely to go into these much needed areas then other individuals. Will all of them? No. Is it a perfect system? No. I am simply suggesting that as a professional body we need to make an effort. Your suggestions are definitely correct for research based programs.

I think we do need to make an effort to dispel problems such as discrimination. And research probably shows that red, green, purple, & yellow patients feel more comfortable and get better treatment from practitioners of their respective colors. But that is the problem, not that there isn't a certain amount of this or that gender or color.

The APA has required that all clinical students take at least one course in multicultural issues, which I think is probably a good thing, it makes sense from a practitioners standpoint. I think what we need to worry about is the way doctors interact with patients, regardless of race, creed, gender, or religion. That is what matters. The rest is just politics.

But returning to other political issues, psisci you might have an answer for this, what if there are political issues that would have a large effect in the way we practice or research? Should we stay out of the fray?

 

[codetype4/9]

Malarkey. To say that organized psychology should not be political or have alliances is absurd. The primary function of professional organizations is to advance the interests of the profession. If APA or whatever organization is trying to advance the interests of clinical psychologists in health care reform or to persuade government agencies to spend more money on psychological research, it is acting in the political arena. The fact is, psychology is rife with politics and cannot be divorced from it.

I agree with psisci that the political nature of the field should be discussed openly. There is no value free data to inform public policy, we need to be aware of the politics that influence and fund our research, prevent us from asking certain questions, etc.

The best psychology has done for humanity occurs in shaping public policy. Kenneth Clark's research was the integral piece in Brown v. Board of Education for example.

 

[Sanman]

As far as the original question, I also think that it is important for the APA to take political stances on issues that matter to it. Many groups, the AMA included, are heavily political, contribute to campaigns, etc. The reason I pay dues for this group to advocate for psychology. Unfortunately, all professions have an inherent political aspect to them. Why are meds considered a more reimbursable treatment than psychotherapy even for conditions in which psychotherapy has a better long term outcome for the patient? How are special education laws determined and are the outcomes helpful to children? Should a psychologist be sued by a parent who disagrees with the custody evaluation made by the psychologist? Should MSW's be able to do everything PhD psychologists can? In my opinion, not having an organization that is powerful and politically active is the career equivalent of bringing a knife to a gunfight. When many other organizations are fighting politically for their rights, you need one to fight for ours.

 

[Sanman]

To play the devil's advocate to this suggestion I would have to say, don't you think that is kind of racist? Essentially what this suggests is that your would be picking candidates based on the color of their skin. So that begs the question, why would anyone want to pick candidates based on the color of their skin, or any other silly atrbute? But that question leads us into your next points.....

Well not simply skin color, but the fact that this person wants to help a group of individuals that needs more qualified practitioners. Hence the caucasian person who wants to help deaf individuals. Well, all we do is pick individuals based on silly attributes. Is someone with a 3.7 gpa going to be a better therapist than someone with a 3.6 gpa? Perhaps they simply took easier classes, perhaps they have no social skills. There is no bulletproof way to candidates. Picking simply based on grades is flawed as well. This simply rewards those that know how to play the game well and can take the easy classes and spend a lot of time prepping for the GRE.

think that this is another dangerous assumption, that one must be of the same color, gender, or life situation to relate to the patient. If the patient feels that way to the extent that they will not seek treatment, they have a problem, I agree. Mental health "clients" will come up with any number of reasons not to seek treatment, or to avoid particular practitioners, many of them are bogus. I think we need to strive to get over the superficial differences that we assume would make it difficult for two people to relate.

I think we do need to make an effort to dispel problems such as discrimination. And research probably shows that red, green, purple, & yellow patients feel more comfortable and get better treatment from practitioners of their respective colors. But that is the problem, not that there isn't a certain amount of this or that gender or color.

Well, I believe that it is also dangerous to assume that we are all exactly the same and that any person can relate equally well to a client. Like it or not, there are differences. A white upper middle class male can try to take another perspective, but will never know what it is like to be a low income black female. And the truth is that he should be expected to be. Psychologists can't be expected to have an in depth understanding of every client we meet. That is one of the reasons we need a diverse group of psychologists. Also, it really shouldn't shock you to see that the bulk of researchers in African American issues are African American, the bulk of researchers into Asian American issues are Asian, etc. What would happen to all these endeavors if all we let in was Caucasian females? You will lose some of that understanding.
Though you could try, I can't imagine you would have the depth of understanding I do about being an Asian person living in Virginia. Just as I can't tell you what it is like to be white. These aren't just issues we can forget about, they are real. It is not simply an issue of discrimination. Are you suggesting that a woman can understand as well as a man the issues related to masculinity a man faces if he loses his penis to cancer? Like it or not people are how people are, Our job isn't to say that wanting a certain type of therapist is wrong and that they need to get over it. Our goal should be to meet the public need. Like it or not, female gynecologists are much busier than male ones. There was a time when the profession was male dominated. Should be have told women to get over their feelings of being uncomfortable because it should not make a difference?

 

[Psyclops]

Well, Sanman, I think you make some very good points, but I think the answer is somewhere in the middle. I don't think that we should assume that because a practitioner has one feature or another that they won't be capable of providing competent service to another population.

As for your point on political activism, I agree wholeheartedly not that I've thought about it more. I think your and 49's post are good examples of political activism that we would want to see.

It might be questionable though if the APA were to endorse a particular candidate or party, even if that candidate or party's views were to be more in line with the organization's goals.

Peace out, I'm leaving this internet based crack and going to the pool.

 

[Sanman]

Well, Sanman, I think you make some very good points, but I think the answer is somewhere in the middle. I don't think that we should assume that because a practitioner has one feature or another that they won't be capable of providing competent service to another population.

I definitely agree with you that a middle ground is the best, which is why I don't support AA. There aren't necessarily any good minority candidates in every program aplicant pool. I also agree that a person can provide competent service to a different population, I just believe that it is important to have members of the same population as well. I was simply looking at it form the point of only letting is caucasian females. Thus, I never considerd that there would be a shortage of them to provide competent service. I was just making a case for everyone else.

 

[Psyclops]

I just fineshed up reading "Freakonomics" today. It is a very easy and interesting read, but some of it's points would bear on these discussions.

 

[50960]

Just got the book for my b-day, and will be reading soon!!!

 

[Sanman]

I've really been meaning to read that and just browsed through it the other day at the bookstore. Care to elaborate a little psyclops?

 

[Psyclops]

Sure, well a couple of things come to mind really. And I won't spoil it too much, PS. The book addresses at least two issues that would bear on our discussion of AA and the role of psychological organizations in the political sphere. One, the authors take a look at the black vs. white disparity in school performance, finding that it all but disapears if SES is controlled for. But I think that wouldn't be news so much to us. But if we were to begin implementing aid programs, SES might be a better variable than ethnicity. The beauty being of that being of course that if a disporporsionatly large number of one ethnicity is poor or at an unfair disadvantage in terms of education, they will receive proportionately more help (presumably). The other takes a look at the way standardized testing affects teacher's performance. Specifically, how does it negatively affect it. Surprisingly, the authors cite some compelling evidence that it makes teachers cheat. That might have bearing on things like NCLB. These types of studies, which the economists like to call "Freakonomics", and I like to call social psychology, would have a bearing on future policy. I think, given that we now know the results, and that they can be added to a greater body of literature. And, as social scientists, which some psychologists sometimes are, it is our duty to see them implemented. Even if that means participating politically. Now that can mean a variety of things. If it means educating congress, or issuing amicus briefs, or whatever, I think we should. But, of course, politicians will have stances on these, and that is where we would begin to get into sticky territory. And, given the first results they cite, namely that black + white disparity disapears after controlling for SES, and we have a liberal candidate saying he is for AA based on ethnicity (which we now know doesn't make sense) and a conservative saying he wants to get away with it, which should we side with?

Getting back to the book, it's mainly a study of how incentives affect various people, although even the authors don't seem to recognize thier central theme. They claim there isn't one.

 

[Sanman]

hmm...sounds like a great book, I'll have to pick it up after I finish my current one (Stumbling on Happiness by Daniel Gilbert). Its funny, I've always been a proponent of using SES instead of AA. I came to the conclusion in highschool after seeing some fairly affluent minority students use their status to gain entrance into great schools that they would not have gotten into otherwise, thus abusing the spirit of the law. And I have definitely heard about the date testing issue. Especially in light of the fact that teacher performance is being evaluatedbased on it.

 

[psychanon]

Has anyone read this article? Any comments?

Redding, R.E. (2001). Sociopolitical diversity in psychology: The case for pluralism. American Psychologist, 56, 205-215.

Personally, I think it's largely crap, especially the part about affirmative action for conservatives in psychology grad programs. But I'd be interested to hear others' opinions.

I wasn't really trying to start a debate on AA (but such is the nature of internet forums). The article I was referring to was lamenting the lack of political conservatives in psychology, and suggested that programs implement affirmative action for people with conservative beliefs (ironic, since most conservatives are against AA). I think that's a stupid idea not because I'm against AA on principle (I'm not, although I think the idea of expanding it to belief systems seems extremely problematic and easy to abuse) but because I don't think that forcing sociopolitical diversity would improve the field. I'm curious to hear others' opinions-- does the fact that most academic psychologists are liberal bias the field towards producing results that support liberal ideas? Or are more liberal people attracted to the field because it gives empirical support to their political creeds?

 

[50960]

Read the APA Monitor....there is little science here.

😎

 

[Psyclops]

I think many view the field as "looking" for support of liberal values. Personally, I don't want to be associated with a field that has a liberal vs. conservative or vice versa agenda.