Thoughts on the proposed Minnesota Guidelines for neuropsych training?

[WisNeuro]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Why are we minimizing statements that by your own admission was “alt-right flavored” and serious and offensive enough to “merit a three month ban”, and simultaneously downplaying the seriousness of such statements to the offending party merely needing a nap? Why is traumatized in quotes? Would you have the same flippant attitude if the “traumatized” folks were on the other-other side? These are serious questions, related to why the “other side“ feel uncomfortable and “traumatized“ in the status quo.

1000% yes.

 

[PsyDWannabe]

What is the status quo in psychology? Richard Spencer style alt right should certainly be banned from professional discourse and policy considerations. I didn’t see the offending note, but I can’t imagine heavy representation of that kind of thought process in psychology.

The status quo being tolerance or minimizing the existence or effects of such ideology on the usual targets, not the existence of the ideology in and of itself.

 

[PsyDWannabe]

1000% yes.

Good for you.

 

[WisNeuro]

Good for you.

Indeed.

 

[Sanman]

Why are we minimizing statements that by your own admission was “alt-right flavored” and serious and offensive enough to “merit a three month ban”, and simultaneously downplaying the seriousness of such statements to the offending party merely needing a nap? Why is traumatized in quotes? Would you have the same flippant attitude if the “traumatized” folks were on the other-other side? These are serious questions, related to why the “other side“ feel uncomfortable and “traumatized“ in the status quo.

Whatever happened to sticks and stones will break my bones but words will never hurt me? Can't people be upset without being traumatized anymore?

 

[PsyDWannabe]

That puts it into a nebulous space, no? how do you identify that? What counts as minimizing effects? Complaining about politicized language and social justice themes in a guidance doc?

Moreso what I specifically referenced earlier: relegating someone’s use of offensive alt-right flavored language intended to malign and offend to them simply needing a nap. That type of casual minimization is a smaller symptom of a larger problem experienced by many in the field.

 

[borne_before]

That puts it into a nebulous space, no? how do you identify that? What counts as minimizing effects? Complaining about politicized language and social justice themes in a guidance doc?

So, like, how does the field of neuropsychology respond to the bell curve and racial differences in IQ? This has seemingly permeated a certain group of 'racial realists" on twitter. Whereas less culturally bound tests still show differences, differences exist on so called "nonverbal" intelligence tests, norming to over represent certain demographies still result in differences, etc. None have worked to reduce bias. Do we use racially segregated norms? Do we just accept the group differences? Am I the only one who sees the social justice in figure this problem out? Maybe the field should address real problems before focusing on the identity laden religious ones?

 

[PsyDWannabe]

Whatever happened to sticks and stones will break my bones but words will never hurt me? Can't people be upset without being traumatized anymore?

You’re asking the wrong person, I did not introduce the term into this conversation and I myself am wondering why the term was used and what it means in this context. Why not ask the poster who did?

 

[WisNeuro]

So, like, how does the field of neuropsychology respond to the bell curve and racial differences in IQ? This has seemingly permeated a certain group of 'racial realists" on twitter. Whereas less culturally bound tests still show differences, differences exist on so called "nonverbal" intelligence tests, norming over represents certain demographies. None have worked. Do we use racially segregated norms? Am I the only one who sees the social justice in figure this problem out? Maybe the field should address real problems before focusing on the identity laden religious ones?

Create a new thread if you want to discuss this bag of worms. One could teach a several semester long course on this topic.

 

[WisNeuro]

Whatever happened to sticks and stones will break my bones but words will never hurt me? Can't people be upset without being traumatized anymore?

Because it's impossible to even sit with the mildest amount of anxiety these days without breaking. Which is why actual discussions cannot take place anymore.

 

[borne_before]

Create a new thread if you want to discuss this bag of worms. One could teach a several sermester long course on this topic.

I don't know if I want to discuss this bag or worms, dude. It's seriously heavy. But, I am legit interested in how the minnesota guidelines would practically address such issues and I wish they would.

Like, I know in my heart that racial differences probably are not due to how much melanin someone has in their skin. But, that stuff does matter - my darker brothers and sisters do often get treated differently, systemically/historically/etc because of it. That those differences on test scores probably do not really indicate superiority of intelligence - that it's just measurement gunk. But for all the outcry of the bell curve - this is still a problem not solved. Or do we just admit the bias? Say "yo this test isnt super fair because of your racial background"?

Super interested in how this stuff translates or the implementation science of this stuff.

 

[WisNeuro]

I don't know if I want to discuss this bag or worms, dude. It's seriously heavy. But, I am legit interested in how the minnesota guidelines would practically address such issues and I wish they would.

Like, I know in my heart that racial differences probably are not due to how much melanin someone has in their skin. But, that stuff does matter - my darker brothers and sisters do often get treated differently, systemically/historically/etc because of it. That those differences on test scores probably do not really indicate superiority of intelligence - that it's just measurement gunk.

Put it under the broader umbrella of norming issues for the purposes of the current discussion.

 

[borne_before]

Put it under the broader umbrella of norming issues for the purposes of the current discussion.

But by doing that, it loses the specificity of the issue. Or is the problem too hard for our field to solve? It could fall under norming issues to some extent, but it's more of an issue of subgroup to norming group comparison that has real nasty potential for despicableness.

 

[PsyDWannabe]

I don't know if I want to discuss this bag or worms, dude. It's seriously heavy. But, I am legit interested in how the minnesota guidelines would practically address such issues and I wish they would.

Like, I know in my heart that racial differences probably are not due to how much melanin someone has in their skin. But, that stuff does matter - my darker brothers and sisters do often get treated differently, systemically/historically/etc because of it. That those differences on test scores probably do not really indicate superiority of intelligence - that it's just measurement gunk. But for all the outcry of the bell curve - this is still a problem not solved. Or do we just admit the bias? Say "yo this test isnt super fair because of your racial background"?

Super interested in how this stuff translates or the implementation science of this stuff.

Undoubtedly a good use of MNC debate time and energy, and I am disappointed that this (and other relevant issues) didn’t make it to the forefront or are not getting as much attention due to the infighting

 

[WisNeuro]

But by doing that, it loses the specificity of the issue. Or is the problem too hard for our field to solve? It could fall under norming issues to some extent, but it's more of an issue of subgroup to norming group comparison that has real nasty potential for despicableness.

I disagree as far as how this works pragmatically. How norms are obtained and used overlaps pretty well with this issue. I'm not sure how it loses specificity when we're talking about how these differences are measured, why they are found, and how we apply them to clinical practice.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

One of the (several) issues is that most people agree in principle about the need for diversity in neuropsych, and multicultural competency, but disagree with some of the terms used that are somewhat ambiguous and carry a lot of political connotations. Again, just one of the issues, this a fairly multifaceted issue of which some people really want to boil it down to an oversimplified binary.

Not much happening at the moment, we're kind of in a holding pattern while another draft is being prepared behind the scenes. Haven't gotten much in the way of substantive updates in a while.

I think that people are so interested in it (and holding their breath) because it represents a sort of 'canary in the coal mine' phenomenon. If the practice of neuropsychology is 'fundamentally transformed' in ways that at least a substantial proportion neuropsychologists consider detrimental to the profession (or its competent practice), then we're in big trouble, long term (all of psychology). The prevailing ideological winds in the profession are only blowing in one direction, as far as I can tell. It will be an interesting test (clash) of different ideas about the identity (and core values) of the profession (both neuropsych, and professional psychology in general). I will likely retire in the next 10-11 years or so...what happens after that, I really don't care one way or the other. I'll buy plenty of popcorn in retirement and enjoy the spectacle.

 

[WisNeuro]

I think that people are so interested in it (and holding their breath) because it represents a sort of 'canary in the coal mine' phenomenon. If the practice of neuropsychology is 'fundamentally transformed' in ways that at least a substantial proportion neuropsychologists consider detrimental to the profession (or its competent practice), then we're in big trouble, long term (all of psychology). The prevailing ideological winds in the profession are only blowing in one direction, as far as I can tell. It will be an interesting test (clash) of different ideas about the identity (and core values) of the profession (both neuropsych, and professional psychology in general). I will likely retire in the next 10-11 years or so...what happens after that, I really don't care one way or the other. I'll buy plenty of popcorn in retirement and enjoy the spectacle.

Yeah, I'll be done before they essentially cede everything to midlevels and reimbursement goes down the tank. One of the reasons I'm already mostly forensic. It'd be nice to leave the core guild issues of scope and reimbursement in better shape, but that focus decreases year by year.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

So, like, how does the field of neuropsychology respond to the bell curve and racial differences in IQ? This has seemingly permeated a certain group of 'racial realists" on twitter. Whereas less culturally bound tests still show differences, differences exist on so called "nonverbal" intelligence tests, norming to over represent certain demographies still result in differences, etc. None have worked to reduce bias. Do we use racially segregated norms? Do we just accept the group differences? Am I the only one who sees the social justice in figure this problem out? Maybe the field should address real problems before focusing on the identity laden religious ones?

Agreed.

I find it hard to take anyone seriously as an academic who cannot differentiate among the following questions/issues as applied to an area of study:

(a) 'What IS?' (descriptive science, e.g., ARE there differences (observed?); what is the nature of those differences?) versus
(b) 'WHY is it this way' (getting at explanation, causality, empirical confirmation/refutation, causal models, etc.) versus
(c) 'What OUGHT TO BE?' (morality, consequences (societal), shoulds, etc.)

Too often I see political ideology (implicitly or explicitly) confusing and conflating a, b, and c (above).

The idea that--in certain areas--we cannot (or it would somehow be immoral to) ask (a)-type questions ('What IS?') strikes me as one of those profound differences in viewpoints that is going to split the profession in two.

 

[borne_before]

Agreed.

I find it hard to take anyone seriously as an academic who cannot differentiate among the following questions/issues as applied to an area of study:

(a) 'What IS?' (descriptive science, e.g., ARE there differences (observed?); what is the nature of those differences?) versus
(b) 'WHY is it this way' (getting at explanation, causality, empirical confirmation/refutation, causal models, etc.) versus
(c) 'What OUGHT TO BE?' (morality, consequences (societal), shoulds, etc.)

Too often I see political ideology (implicitly or explicitly) confusing and conflating a, b, and c (above).

The idea that--in certain areas--we cannot (or it would somehow be immoral to) ask (a)-type questions ('What IS?') strikes me as one of those profound differences in viewpoints that is going to split the profession in two.

Okay. I'm legit annoyed by how well this breaks things down. I'm embarrassed to admit that I have approached this by entangling those three things.

Those align with the goals or purposes of psychology... Gah, what a clever way to consider the problem.

How did you learn to do this (I'm asking about the metacognition here).

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

Okay. I'm legit annoyed by how well this breaks things down. I'm embarrassed to admit that I have approached this by entangling those three things.

Those align with the goals or purposes of psychology... Gah, what a clever way to consider the problem.

How did you learn to do this (I'm asking about the metacognition here).

Mainly by slogging through BS in the VA system day in and day out for the past 10+ years (lol, not even kidding).

It also helps to love reading philosophy of science texts.

Sooooo much of the systemic pathology is related to failures of people to even address what IS (facts, reality). Like...many topics are either outright verboten to discuss, bring up, or study or else they are minimized, ignored, poo-pooed prior to investigation, etc.

It is borne (pun intended) out of the frustration of dealing with that system.

Faulty ideologies (and tyrannies) will ALWAYS attack the 'What IS?' domain. They want to control/influence people through choosing the narrative(s) to push with respect to 'WHY things are the way they are' (even when they aren't actually that way--and this could be demonstrated by careful attention to what (actually) IS' and they also really like to push the narrative in terms of the way things 'OUGHT TO BE.' And it is CRITICAL to exclude certain data, outlawing the asking and answering certain factual questions (what IS?) and/or to attack people for making observations or pointing to data.

Properly conducted, the scientific enterprise is the OPPOSITE of this approach.

It is, as a famous person once said, 'the sincere desire to find out the truth, WHATEVER THAT MAY BE.'

 

[Neuroskeptical]

Why are we minimizing statements that by your own admission was “alt-right flavored” and serious and offensive enough to “merit a three month ban”, and simultaneously downplaying the seriousness of such statements to the offending party merely needing a nap? Why is traumatized in quotes? Would you have the same flippant attitude if the “traumatized” folks were on the other-other side? These are serious questions, related to why the “other side“ feel uncomfortable and “traumatized“ in the status quo.

Sorry to take so long to get back to you. You're conflating one colleague's lifetime ban for alt-right/libertarian-right talking points with another's lesser suspension for chronic surliness and non-DEI related sentiments with respect to the MNC. I get it. It would help to have a scorecard.


The alleged traumatization occurred way before the post that got the offending party banned. Apparently, the very questioning of the MNC work product and process was allegedly traumatizing to some individuals. That is, the simple presence of a strident debate on a personally held worldview was allegedly traumatizing.

I can certainly see that the process of questioning the MNC document (and process) and the exchanges that followed might draw anger and frustration from those invested in the MNC, but describing that discussion as traumatizing, at least to me, seems hyperbolic.

Just how low of a bar do you want to set on what constitutes trauma? Lose a parent or two, lose a child, lose a cherished pet, a job, or a relationship or marriage, witness death or serious injury up close, take a beating, be sexually assaulted, or skate perilously close to same, and then get back to me about traumatization.

There were literal Nazis marching with torches at a MAGA rally in Charlottesville; frankly, that feels like it could be traumatizing. Going far beyond all too frequent police assaults on people of color, I would suggest that even a traffic stop of one's brown or black child would be potentially traumatizing, even more so to the actual subject of that encounter. These are genuinely traumatic times, in my opinion. It's literally unsafe to be black or brown in America. I don't know how it would be possible to navigate these times as a person of color without a honed startle reflex.

That said, and in contrast, my colleague's recitation of standard "anti-woke" talking points was infuriating, and bone-headed in context, but, again in my opinion, fell well short of PTSD Criterion A.

I have problems when colleagues appear so non-resilient as to conflate incivility with trauma, when there's more than enough genuine trauma to go around.

 

[cara susanna]

Sorry to take so long to get back to you. You're conflating one colleague's lifetime ban for alt-right/libertarian-right talking points with another's lesser suspension for chronic surliness and non-DEI related sentiments with respect to the MNC. I get it. It would help to have a scorecard.


The alleged traumatization occurred way before the post that got the offending party banned. Apparently, the very questioning of the MNC work product and process was allegedly traumatizing to some individuals. That is, the simple presence of a strident debate on a personally held worldview was allegedly traumatizing.

I can certainly see that the process of questioning the MNC document (and process) and the exchanges that followed might draw anger and frustration from those invested in the MNC, but describing that discussion as traumatizing, at least to me, seems hyperbolic.

Just how low of a bar do you want to set on what constitutes trauma? Lose a parent or two, lose a child, lose a cherished pet, a job, or a relationship or marriage, witness death or serious injury up close, take a beating, be sexually assaulted, or skate perilously close to same, and then get back to me about traumatization.

There were literal Nazis marching with torches at a MAGA rally in Charlottesville; frankly, that feels like it could be traumatizing. Going far beyond all too frequent police assaults on people of color, I would suggest that even a traffic stop of one's brown or black child would be potentially traumatizing, even more so to the actual subject of that encounter. These are genuinely traumatic times, in my opinion. It's literally unsafe to be black or brown in America. I don't know how it would be possible to navigate these times as a person of color without a honed startle reflex.

That said, and in contrast, my colleague's recitation of standard "anti-woke" talking points was infuriating, and bone-headed in context, but, again in my opinion, fell well short of PTSD Criterion A.

I have problems when colleagues appear so non-resilient as to conflate incivility with trauma, when there's more than enough genuine trauma to go around.

To be fair, some of your examples don't constitute Criterion A either. Losing a parent or child by definition isn't Criterion A as it depends on the circumstances of the loss. Losing a pet, job, or relationship is not Criterion A.

 

[WisNeuro]

To be fair, some of your examples don't constitute Criterion A either. Losing a parent or child by definition isn't Criterion A as it depends on the circumstances of the loss. Losing a pet, job, or relationship is not Criterion A.

Indeed, but I think we can all agree that disagreement/a heated discussion falls WELL short of even the most liberal definition of "trauma." Unless that definition comes from Tik Tok. In which case, the Starbucks barista misspelling your name is enough to give someone complex PTSD.

 

[Sanman]

Sorry to take so long to get back to you. You're conflating one colleague's lifetime ban for alt-right/libertarian-right talking points with another's lesser suspension for chronic surliness and non-DEI related sentiments with respect to the MNC. I get it. It would help to have a scorecard.


The alleged traumatization occurred way before the post that got the offending party banned. Apparently, the very questioning of the MNC work product and process was allegedly traumatizing to some individuals. That is, the simple presence of a strident debate on a personally held worldview was allegedly traumatizing.

I can certainly see that the process of questioning the MNC document (and process) and the exchanges that followed might draw anger and frustration from those invested in the MNC, but describing that discussion as traumatizing, at least to me, seems hyperbolic.

Just how low of a bar do you want to set on what constitutes trauma? Lose a parent or two, lose a child, lose a cherished pet, a job, or a relationship or marriage, witness death or serious injury up close, take a beating, be sexually assaulted, or skate perilously close to same, and then get back to me about traumatization.

There were literal Nazis marching with torches at a MAGA rally in Charlottesville; frankly, that feels like it could be traumatizing. Going far beyond all too frequent police assaults on people of color, I would suggest that even a traffic stop of one's brown or black child would be potentially traumatizing, even more so to the actual subject of that encounter. These are genuinely traumatic times, in my opinion. It's literally unsafe to be black or brown in America. I don't know how it would be possible to navigate these times as a person of color without a honed startle reflex.

That said, and in contrast, my colleague's recitation of standard "anti-woke" talking points was infuriating, and bone-headed in context, but, again in my opinion, fell well short of PTSD Criterion A.

I have problems when colleagues appear so non-resilient as to conflate incivility with trauma, when there's more than enough genuine trauma to go around.

You are honestly more generous than I would be with regard to your definition of trauma and I have lived through some of those things. That used to be called "reality" if you are a person of color until everyone started calling it race-based trauma. I personally don't feel this country is anymore dangerous than it used to be, it is just more public.

 

[cara susanna]

Indeed, but I think we can all agree that disagreement/a heated discussion falls WELL short of even the most liberal definition of "trauma." Unless that definition comes from Tik Tok. In which case, the Starbucks barista misspelling your name is enough to give someone complex PTSD.

Oh, for sure. I really hate when the word "trauma" is used to describe any single negative thing that can ever happen to anyone.

 

[Sanman]

Indeed, but I think we can all agree that disagreement/a heated discussion falls WELL short of even the most liberal definition of "trauma." Unless that definition comes from Tik Tok. In which case, the Starbucks barista misspelling your name is enough to give someone complex PTSD.

If these things are considered trauma, the entire MH staff of the VA or any major hospital should be able to claim disability for vicarious trauma.

 

[Pragma]

Indeed, but I think we can all agree that disagreement/a heated discussion falls WELL short of even the most liberal definition of "trauma." Unless that definition comes from Tik Tok. In which case, the Starbucks barista misspelling your name is enough to give someone complex PTSD.

The incredible lack of distress tolerance is highly concerning. There is a new generation of neuropsychologists coming out that have no idea how money and institutional bottom lines work when setting their own expectations for how things should be. I am "traumatized" by that, and baristas never get my name right!

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

Sorry to take so long to get back to you. You're conflating one colleague's lifetime ban for alt-right/libertarian-right talking points with another's lesser suspension for chronic surliness and non-DEI related sentiments with respect to the MNC. I get it. It would help to have a scorecard.


The alleged traumatization occurred way before the post that got the offending party banned. Apparently, the very questioning of the MNC work product and process was allegedly traumatizing to some individuals. That is, the simple presence of a strident debate on a personally held worldview was allegedly traumatizing.

I can certainly see that the process of questioning the MNC document (and process) and the exchanges that followed might draw anger and frustration from those invested in the MNC, but describing that discussion as traumatizing, at least to me, seems hyperbolic.

Just how low of a bar do you want to set on what constitutes trauma? Lose a parent or two, lose a child, lose a cherished pet, a job, or a relationship or marriage, witness death or serious injury up close, take a beating, be sexually assaulted, or skate perilously close to same, and then get back to me about traumatization.

There were literal Nazis marching with torches at a MAGA rally in Charlottesville; frankly, that feels like it could be traumatizing. Going far beyond all too frequent police assaults on people of color, I would suggest that even a traffic stop of one's brown or black child would be potentially traumatizing, even more so to the actual subject of that encounter. These are genuinely traumatic times, in my opinion. It's literally unsafe to be black or brown in America. I don't know how it would be possible to navigate these times as a person of color without a honed startle reflex.

That said, and in contrast, my colleague's recitation of standard "anti-woke" talking points was infuriating, and bone-headed in context, but, again in my opinion, fell well short of PTSD Criterion A.

I have problems when colleagues appear so non-resilient as to conflate incivility with trauma, when there's more than enough genuine trauma to go around.

In terms of academic "freedom of speech," it occurs to me that the ONLY type of speech protected by that principle would HAVE TO BE dissenting speech, 'traumatizing' or not.

I mean, hell, if people aren't allowed to disagree/debate, then what's the point of PRETENDING to communicate?

 

[Neuroskeptical]

To be fair, some of your examples don't constitute Criterion A either. Losing a parent or child by definition isn't Criterion A as it depends on the circumstances of the loss. Losing a pet, job, or relationship is not Criterion A.

You're right, of course. And that makes the point: If those truly horrible things don't make the cut as "traumatic", then neither does interacting with a meanie.

 

[SomeGreatNotion]

Sorry to take so long to get back to you. You're conflating one colleague's lifetime ban for alt-right/libertarian-right talking points with another's lesser suspension for chronic surliness and non-DEI related sentiments with respect to the MNC. I get it. It would help to have a scorecard.


The alleged traumatization occurred way before the post that got the offending party banned. Apparently, the very questioning of the MNC work product and process was allegedly traumatizing to some individuals. That is, the simple presence of a strident debate on a personally held worldview was allegedly traumatizing.

I can certainly see that the process of questioning the MNC document (and process) and the exchanges that followed might draw anger and frustration from those invested in the MNC, but describing that discussion as traumatizing, at least to me, seems hyperbolic.

Just how low of a bar do you want to set on what constitutes trauma? Lose a parent or two, lose a child, lose a cherished pet, a job, or a relationship or marriage, witness death or serious injury up close, take a beating, be sexually assaulted, or skate perilously close to same, and then get back to me about traumatization.

There were literal Nazis marching with torches at a MAGA rally in Charlottesville; frankly, that feels like it could be traumatizing. Going far beyond all too frequent police assaults on people of color, I would suggest that even a traffic stop of one's brown or black child would be potentially traumatizing, even more so to the actual subject of that encounter. These are genuinely traumatic times, in my opinion. It's literally unsafe to be black or brown in America. I don't know how it would be possible to navigate these times as a person of color without a honed startle reflex.

That said, and in contrast, my colleague's recitation of standard "anti-woke" talking points was infuriating, and bone-headed in context, but, again in my opinion, fell well short of PTSD Criterion A.

I have problems when colleagues appear so non-resilient as to conflate incivility with trauma, when there's more than enough genuine trauma to go around.

I don't disagree with what others have mentioned here regarding Criterion A creep. I hope PsyDWannabe responds but I imagine they would observe that the message board is devoting an inordinate amount of attention to the "hyperbolic", "traumatic" response rather than the "bone-headed" one that elicited it.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

I don't disagree with what others have mentioned here regarding Criterion A creep. I hope PsyDWannabe responds but I imagine they would observe that the message board is devoting an inordinate amount of attention to the "hyperbolic", "traumatic" response rather than the "bone-headed" one that elicited it.

Everyone has a right to say things that some people would think are 'boneheaded.'

Ad hominems happen all the time in debate. It's an exceptionally sophomoric and weak tactic, but it happens all the time. Debate participants can 'agree to disagree,' they can call each other boneheaded...that's fine. Ironically, in such a hypothetical scenario, both participants are actually being 'boneheaded.' It's cool.

I think that the reason that people have such strong opinions about the tactic of some people claiming to be personally 'traumatized' by others making 'boneheaded' comments or saying things they disagree with is because (a) it is a tactic that is likely designed to shut down debate while (b) simultaneously accusing the other person of intentionally visiting literal 'trauma' on them (for daring to disagree with them) which even implies (if we take the literal definition of trauma to heart) that they are even the victim of a vicious, perhaps even criminal assault. It also has the effect of 'chilling' dissent from their position because no one wants to be fingered as a 'traumatizer.' There is no way that honest, open debate can even exist if people just go around claiming 'trauma' due to someone engaging in a spirited debate with them or even if they say something mean or rude. In my experience, those who claim to be 'traumatized' by others' rudeness in these contexts are hardly innocent of engaging in rude comments toward others in their own lives or in their own histories but, strangely, they do not consider themselves 'traumatizers.'

 

[Neuroskeptical]

Everyone has a right to say things that some people would think are 'boneheaded.'

Ad hominems happen all the time in debate. It's an exceptionally sophomoric and weak tactic, but it happens all the time. Debate participants can 'agree to disagree,' they can call each other boneheaded...that's fine. Ironically, in this scenario, both participants are actually being 'boneheaded.' It's cool.

I think that the reason that people have such strong opinions about the tactic of some people claiming to be personally 'traumatized' by others making 'boneheaded' comments or saying things they disagree with is because (a) it is a tactic that is likely designed to shut down debate while (b) simultaneously accusing the other person of intentionally visiting literal 'trauma' on them (for daring to disagree with them) which even implies (if we take the literal definition of trauma to heart) that they are even the victim of a vicious, perhaps even criminal assault. It also has the effect of 'chilling' dissent from their position because no one wants to be fingered as a 'traumatizer.' There is no way that honest, open debate can even exist if people just go around claiming 'trauma' due to someone engaging in a spirited debate with them or even if they say something mean or rude. In my experience, those who claim to be 'traumatized' by others' rudeness in these contexts are hardly innocent of engaging in rude comments toward others in their own lives or in their own histories but, strangely, they do not consider themselves 'traumatizers.'

Again, the "boneheaded" (and I should have called it offensive) comment followed the alleged traumatization by about 6 weeks. The alleged trauma was in response to the earliest stages of the complaints about the MNG. If you believe spirited debate is traumatizing, then believe what else you will.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

Again, the "boneheaded" (and I should have called it offensive) comment followed the alleged traumatization by about 6 weeks. The alleged trauma was in response to the earliest stages of the complaints about the MNG. If you believe spirited debate is traumatizing, then believe what else you will.

I think it's pretty clear that I don't believe that any debate is 'traumatizing.' I don't even think that 'offensive' comments are 'traumatizing.' You have to risk being 'offensive' in order to make any clear or strong point. And, if some people define 'offensive' (to them) as anything that offends them...well...I mean...ooooookay. You can't get any more subjective than that.

It's amazing how the fundamental foundations of clinical psychological science are being completely turned on their head in record time.

I mean, when I do cognitive-behavioral anger management (using a great workbook, Anger Management for Everyone), the first chapter lays out what is referred to as 'The Big Mistake.' The Big Mistake is basically assuming that other people or events outside one's self MAKE one angry. There are many factors in understanding an anger episode including physiological, learning history, etc. but the most important factor is one's own thoughts/interpretations of the situation. The first thing you have to do in any therapy is teach people to take responsibility for their own cognitive, emotional, and behavioral responses no matter what other people are doing or saying.

But, the same therapist who would leverage these principles with their clients in therapy would turn around and completely reverse that position when they're debating colleagues on a listserv, or in class, or in journal articles?

'What you said was 'offensive' and 'traumatizing.' Really? It just seems such an internally inconsistent worldview. When my patients get angry over something someone said, then they have an 'anger problem' and need cognitive-behavioral anger management (therapy) in order to change their own beliefs and actions. But when *I* get SO offended at what someone says, then I have been 'traumatized' and that other person who said the mean thing needs to be punished.

 

[WisNeuro]

I don't disagree with what others have mentioned here regarding Criterion A creep. I hope PsyDWannabe responds but I imagine they would observe that the message board is devoting an inordinate amount of attention to the "hyperbolic", "traumatic" response rather than the "bone-headed" one that elicited it.

Not at all. For the most part, that person was largely ignored. I don't really recall anyone jumping on board with those comments. As was mentioned above, the vast majority of discussion has been centered on the "trauma." Oh, and telling some of our BIPOC colleagues that they do not understand racism when they raise concerns about the document or process.

 

[WisNeuro]

I think it's pretty clear that I don't believe that any debate is 'traumatizing.' I don't even think that 'offensive' comments are 'traumatizing.' You have to risk being 'offensive' in order to make any clear or strong point. And, if some people define 'offensive' (to them) as anything that offends them...well...I mean...ooooookay. You can't get any more subjective than that.

It's amazing how the fundamental foundations of clinical psychological science are being completely turned on their head in record time.

I mean, when I do cognitive-behavioral anger management (using a great workbook, Anger Management for Everyone), the first chapter lays out what is referred to as 'The Big Mistake.' The Big Mistake is basically assuming that other people or events outside one's self MAKE one angry. There are many factors in understanding an anger episode including physiological, learning history, etc. but the most important factor is one's own thoughts/interpretations of the situation. The first thing you have to do in any therapy is teach people to take responsibility for their own cognitive, emotional, and behavioral responses no matter what other people are doing or saying.

But, the same therapist who would leverage these principles with their clients in therapy would turn around and completely reverse that position when they're debating colleagues on a listserv, or in class, or in journal articles?

'What you said was 'offensive' and 'traumatizing.' Really? It just seems such an internally inconsistent worldview. When my patients get angry over something someone said, then they have an 'anger problem' and need cognitive-behavioral anger management (therapy) in order to change their own beliefs and actions. But when *I* get SO offended at what someone says, then I have been 'traumatized' and that other person who said the mean thing needs to be punished.

This seems especially prevalent in psychology these days. I'm going to coin the term "weaponized emotional immaturity/fragility." That by being or feigning offense for yourself or others, you try and shut down any discussion for anything that you even remotely disagree with. Want to co-write this paper?

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

This seems especially prevalent in psychology these days. I'm going to coin the term "weaponized emotional immaturity/fragility." That by being or feigning offense for yourself or others, you try and shut down any discussion for anything that you even remotely disagree with. Want to co-write this paper?

Sure. I admire your passion.

Edit: We may have to found our own journal, though, to find anywhere within professional psychology or the social sciences to publish it, however, lol.

(and I think there is already an appropriate colloquial term...'crybullies')

 

[cara susanna]

This seems especially prevalent in psychology these days. I'm going to coin the term "weaponized emotional immaturity/fragility." That by being or feigning offense for yourself or others, you try and shut down any discussion for anything that you even remotely disagree with. Want to co-write this paper?

Excuse me, are you asking us for emotional labor?

(sarcasm in case people can't tell)

 

[WisNeuro]

Excuse me, are you asking us for emotional labor?

(sarcasm in case people can't tell)

LOL, that has definitely come across several times in my work in organizations. The underlying context is usually, we put out a call for volunteers, no one volunteered, one of the small group of people who usually steps up, does so again, people bitch and complain about something, we ask if they'd like to take the project over or consult, and then the incredulous "emotional labor exploitation" BS pops up. Utterly ridiculous how it's used in many settings. There have been a raft of recent articles about capable leaders shunning leadership roles, and this is one of those reasons. Many psych orgs and state assns leadership elections are essentially unopposed people who were simply talked into the role after a few people smarter than they rightfully turned it down.

 

[Existenz]

Nice to see some things haven't changed on this forum :]

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

LOL, that has definitely come across several times in my work in organizations. The underlying context is usually, we put out a call for volunteers, no one volunteered, one of the small group of people who usually steps up, does so again, people bitch and complain about something, we ask if they'd like to take the project over or consult, and then the incredulous "emotional labor exploitation" BS pops up. Utterly ridiculous how it's used in many settings. There have been a raft of recent articles about capable leaders shunning leadership roles, and this is one of those reasons. Many psych orgs and state assns leadership elections are essentially unopposed people who were simply talked into the role after a few people smarter than they rightfully turned it down.

Lead.

Follow.

Or get out of the way.

 

[WisNeuro]

Lead.

Follow.

Or get out of the way.

I got out of the way 🙂 I took my financial contributions and time and now use those resources for solo advocacy.

 

[futureapppsy2]

LOL, that has definitely come across several times in my work in organizations. The underlying context is usually, we put out a call for volunteers, no one volunteered, one of the small group of people who usually steps up, does so again, people bitch and complain about something, we ask if they'd like to take the project over or consult, and then the incredulous "emotional labor exploitation" BS pops up. Utterly ridiculous how it's used in many settings. There have been a raft of recent articles about capable leaders shunning leadership roles, and this is one of those reasons. Many psych orgs and state assns leadership elections are essentially unopposed people who were simply talked into the role after a few people smarter than they rightfully turned it down.

To be fair, there is a very real version of this for people from marginalized backgrounds, especially if they're visibly "different"--we are consistently voluntold to serve on committees and do DEI work if we want any representation at all, and there's often not a critical mass of people so the same 2-4 people get to take a bunch of unpaid work because "hey, you're a minority; you can do this", with no real benefit. I was on a institutional DEI committee that got doxxed by White supremacists last year, and luckily was able to nope out of that committee immediately after due to getting tenure, but there was no real support from my institution, and it made me rethink what service work I'm willing to agree to, especially now that I can be more choose-y.

 

[WisNeuro]

To be fair, there is a very real version of this for people from marginalized backgrounds, especially if they're visibly "different"--we are consistently voluntold to serve on committees and do DEI work if we want any representation at all, and there's often not a critical mass of people so the same 2-4 people get to take a bunch of unpaid work because "hey, you're a minority; you can do this", with no real benefit. I was on a institutional DEI committee that got doxxed by White supremacists last year, and luckily was able to nope out of that committee immediately after due to getting tenure, but there was no real support from my institution, and it made me rethink what service work I'm willing to agree to, especially now that I can be more choose-y.

I agree that it's a real phenomenon. But, just like DEI inititives, how this term is used in practice, is a bit different. In practice, I've seen far more vitriol thrown at people trying to help and potential allies, than I've seen directed at people vehemently opposed. In the end, all it does is drive everyone away from leadership and other volunteer positions. I get the "same 2-4 people" that do a bunch of unpaid work comment. That's essentially most psychology leadership positions. I've been one of those people and I have many friends and colleagues who have as well. Most of those people refuse to do it anymore. It was kind of easy dealing with the far right cranks now and then, but that was nothing compared to the far left people in recent years. Similar to the MN guidelines debacle it's nothing but vitriol at even the slightest disagreement and shouting down any discussion. It's simply not worth it anymore, and I'm glad to be mostly forensic these days, watching the clinical side of things sink year by year.

 

[futureapppsy2]

I agree that it's a real phenomenon. But, just like DEI inititives, how this term is used in practice, is a bit different. In practice, I've seen far more vitriol thrown at people trying to help and potential allies, than I've seen directed at people vehemently opposed. In the end, all it does is drive everyone away from leadership and other volunteer positions. I get the "same 2-4 people" that do a bunch of unpaid work comment. That's essentially most psychology leadership positions. I've been one of those people and I have many friends and colleagues who have as well. Most of those people refuse to do it anymore. It was kind of easy dealing with the far right cranks now and then, but that was nothing compared to the far left people in recent years. Similar to the MN guidelines debacle it's nothing but vitriol at even the slightest disagreement and shouting down any discussion. It's simply not worth it anymore, and I'm glad to be mostly forensic these days, watching the clinical side of things sink year by year.

I disagree. I’ve dealt with my share of drama and being really self-righteous from the left (as a Jew, everyone hates Jews but for different reasons, it seems), but they weren’t anywhere near as violent and hateful as the White Supremacists who doxxed us. They were vicious and violent, and honestly, the some of the allies on the committee were the worst about it—they were literally like “let’s get doxxed again!”—and I was just like “being repeatedly threatened and viciously insulted isn’t worth it for a service assignment; I’m finding a new Committee to be on.”

 

[WisNeuro]

I disagree. I’ve dealt with my share of drama and being really self-righteous from the left (as a Jew, everyone hates Jews but for different reasons, it seems), but they weren’t anywhere near as violent and hateful as the White Supremacists who doxxed us. They were vicious and violent, and honestly, the some of the allies on the committee were the worst about it—they were literally like “let’s get doxxed again!”—and I was just like “being repeatedly threatened and viciously insulted isn’t worth it for a service assignment; I’m finding a new Committee to be on.”

I was just speaking about our own situation up here, not saying your situation wasn't more egregious. Both things can be true.

 

[WisNeuro]

Yes, the weighting of "far?" left is massive in professional organizations, universities, government. It is powerful and aggressive. And, it is punishing to offer any opposition or counter ideas. It is quite the conundrum because they're wrong. It is necessary that they are countered. But, you have to have a screw or two loose, naive, independently wealth, or in some other way shielded to voice opposition.

The far/alt right effectively doesn't exist in these spaces and is such a small and universally reviled group, they're powerless. More of a problem is the characterization and lumping of not far left as "far/alt right."

Disturbing situation.

I wouldn't go this far. Many issues are more nuanced than "right or wrong." My issue is more with the inability take any criticism or having to engage in any sort of meaningful discussion about things.

Also not sure I would call the far right powerless, they tend to be overrepresented in state and federal politics, due to several factors. In psychology circles, I'd probably agree that they tend to be a non-factor in most settings, but there are probably exceptions to that in some places.

 

[borne_before]

To be fair, there is a very real version of this for people from marginalized backgrounds, especially if they're visibly "different"--we are consistently voluntold to serve on committees and do DEI work if we want any representation at all, and there's often not a critical mass of people so the same 2-4 people get to take a bunch of unpaid work because "hey, you're a minority; you can do this", with no real benefit. I was on a institutional DEI committee that got doxxed by White supremacists last year, and luckily was able to nope out of that committee immediately after due to getting tenure, but there was no real support from my institution, and it made me rethink what service work I'm willing to agree to, especially now that I can be more choose-y.

I think this is called tokenism.

It's not usually about inclusion - it's about giving the appearance of diversity. I contend that most DEI, as practiced, is performative in nature - "our group is enlightened because we have minority representation and in the postmodern identity economy, our mandates have more validity and credit." It also allows race consumed members of groups to signal their inclusivity - again, it's about performance.

I think when minority groups start to say its exhausting and laborious, they are picking up the bull crap of the situation.

 

[deleted1173749]

Has anyone actually looked at the readings recommended by the MNC on DEI? Here's the kind of stuff in it.

From Anita Herrera Hamilton’s recommended chapter in the Farzin Irani book:


“As neuropsychologists, we are unified by our passion for brain-behavior relationships, service

of clinical populations, and dedication to scholarship. Embedded in our collective mission are

assumptions of academic integrity, enlightenment, and equity. Yet, many Black, Indigenous, and

People of Color (BIPOC) neuropsychologists encounter professional experiences incongruent

with the equitable values and honorable missions of our field and institutions. The convergence

of colorblind attitudes, neoliberal values, and assumptions of ahistorical scientific neutrality has

significantly impacted academic, institutional, programmatic, and administrative aspects of medicine

and healthcare.1,2 Similar inequities are likely experienced by BIPOC neuropsychologists,1,3,4

although the frequency, scale, and impact are relatively unexamined and remain unclear.”

 

[deleted1173749]

Minnesota Conference readings are a little shaky on science to say the least:

Goghari (2022)


“Inclusive Science and Knowledge Traditions

Like all ways of knowing, psychological knowledge is produced in a sociopolitical context; however, this context is largely unacknowledged in our training. It should be noted that both Western and non-Western knowledge traditions include many ways of knowing, and the emphasis on different elements is a matter of degree rather than dichotomous; it is important to teach trainees about these varied epistemological approaches. Scientific clinical psychology has historically been rooted in European positivist and quantitative ways of knowing—specifically, notions of science that favour analytical, reductionist methods, in contrast to other knowledge tradition systems that may give greater weight to intuitive and holistic approaches. Of importance, whereas the science traditions that undergird clinical psychology emphasize materialist, objective, and quantitative concerns, many other knowledge traditions place a greater value on spiritual, subjective, and qualitative matters, and set no firm boundary between the empirical and sacred realms (Nakashima & Roué, 2002).

…

Most clinical psychologists (myself included) do not understand and are not taught about the positivist philosophies that underlie our discipline’s conceptualization of knowledge. But serving our diverse clinical clientele in a competent manner requires us to have a basic understanding of the assumptions, strengths, and weaknesses of both our own scientific models and of other models of knowing. Additionally, training our students to appreciate different knowledge systems and to be capable of conversing with people who represent diverse ways of knowing will prepare our future practitioners to be better critical thinkers and global citizens. In presenting the founding and history of this discipline, clinical psychology programmes need to push beyond the typical enumeration of Western “great men and great ideas” (Furumoto, 2003), and foreground the histories of women, racialized individuals, as well as other underrepresented groups. To assert that clients with different, non-Western ways of understanding their reality are incorrect, or to require that they interpret the world through a specifically Western cultural lens, is not only harmful and misguided, but fails to recognize the inadequacy of focusing selectively on prominent Western ways of knowing.”


Hmmm. I’ve seen this stuff on Western science and “ways of knowing” somewhere else… Oh wait, it’s from the shaky-on-science Objectives on the MNC website:

“It (Neuropsychology) is inherently biased in the western perspective in which it was developed, and it utilizes many methods that are based on narrow, highly selective samples derived from decades-old assessment and intervention strategies. …CN currently requires paradigmatic changes in ways of conceptualizing, knowing and doing science, training, and practice to become more internally and externally valid, equitable, and just…More broadly, there is a need for CN to recognize, revise, and repair structures, systems, and values that have rewarded and privileged certain ways of knowing and excluded and disregarded diverse perspectives and experiences.”

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

Minnesota Conference readings are a little shaky on science to say the least:

Goghari (2022)


“Inclusive Science and Knowledge Traditions

Like all ways of knowing, psychological knowledge is produced in a sociopolitical context; however, this context is largely unacknowledged in our training. It should be noted that both Western and non-Western knowledge traditions include many ways of knowing, and the emphasis on different elements is a matter of degree rather than dichotomous; it is important to teach trainees about these varied epistemological approaches. Scientific clinical psychology has historically been rooted in European positivist and quantitative ways of knowing—specifically, notions of science that favour analytical, reductionist methods, in contrast to other knowledge tradition systems that may give greater weight to intuitive and holistic approaches. Of importance, whereas the science traditions that undergird clinical psychology emphasize materialist, objective, and quantitative concerns, many other knowledge traditions place a greater value on spiritual, subjective, and qualitative matters, and set no firm boundary between the empirical and sacred realms (Nakashima & Roué, 2002).

…

Most clinical psychologists (myself included) do not understand and are not taught about the positivist philosophies that underlie our discipline’s conceptualization of knowledge. But serving our diverse clinical clientele in a competent manner requires us to have a basic understanding of the assumptions, strengths, and weaknesses of both our own scientific models and of other models of knowing. Additionally, training our students to appreciate different knowledge systems and to be capable of conversing with people who represent diverse ways of knowing will prepare our future practitioners to be better critical thinkers and global citizens. In presenting the founding and history of this discipline, clinical psychology programmes need to push beyond the typical enumeration of Western “great men and great ideas” (Furumoto, 2003), and foreground the histories of women, racialized individuals, as well as other underrepresented groups. To assert that clients with different, non-Western ways of understanding their reality are incorrect, or to require that they interpret the world through a specifically Western cultural lens, is not only harmful and misguided, but fails to recognize the inadequacy of focusing selectively on prominent Western ways of knowing.”


Hmmm. I’ve seen this stuff on Western science and “ways of knowing” somewhere else… Oh wait, it’s from the shaky-on-science Objectives on the MNC website:

“It (Neuropsychology) is inherently biased in the western perspective in which it was developed, and it utilizes many methods that are based on narrow, highly selective samples derived from decades-old assessment and intervention strategies. …CN currently requires paradigmatic changes in ways of conceptualizing, knowing and doing science, training, and practice to become more internally and externally valid, equitable, and just…More broadly, there is a need for CN to recognize, revise, and repair structures, systems, and values that have rewarded and privileged certain ways of knowing and excluded and disregarded diverse perspectives and experiences.”

Okay. So regarding...

..."those European positivist and quantitative ways of knowing"
(probably referring to a number of strands of thought in the philosophy of science in the early 20th century such as positivism (aka logical positivism, logical empiricism, verificationism/falsificationism, hypothetico-deductive reasoning, empirical tests of theories/hypotheses (listening to the data), emphasis on quantification and statistical/mathematical analysis, the operational character of scientific concepts (operationism), etc.)

umm...

..."those European positivist and quantitative ways of knowing" are largely responsible for the incredibly rapid advances in the natural sciences (physics, chemistry, biology) from around the early 20th century through the remainder of the 20th century. Some of it had tendrils all the way back to Francis Bacon and Auguste Compte but things really didn't get fleshed out in the modern 'philosophy of science' (and begin to be widely adopted by scientists) until around the early-mid 20th century (any book or course on the philosophy of science proper may be referenced--or any history book, for that matter). The entire world (including Europe) had been stalled out (in terms of real progress in the natural sciences) for hundreds of years (even millennia) while it was honoring all the "many other knowledge traditions [that] place a greater value on spiritual, subjective, and qualitative matters, and set no firm boundary between the empirical and sacred realms."

Do you enjoy the fruits of refrigeration, microwave ovens, modern pharmaceuticals that treat horrific, deadly diseases, modern obstetrics/gynecology (and safe childbirth and dramatically lowered infant mortality rates), computers, iPhones and posting political philosophy (and/or your derrier) on social media?

Thank a 'European positivist' (and their 'ways of knowing').

Ideas are tools, and some are superior to others in terms of getting results in the natural world. From a 'ways of knowing' (epistemological) perspective:

astronomy is superior to astrology (OBJECTIVELY SO...not just 'sociopolitically' and not arbitrarily)

chemistry is superior to alchemy (OBJECTIVELY SO...not just 'sociopolitically' and not arbitrarily)

biology is superior to vitalism (OBJECTIVELY SO...not just 'sociopolitically' and not arbitrarily)

Anyone who would deny the significance of the difference in technological achievement between, say (a) the erection of a Temple to Apollo in ancient Greece; and (b) the Apollo missions to the moon...we traveled to and set foot on the moon--I just don't know what to say to that.

To frame these perspectives as somehow arbitrary and merely 'sociopolitically rooted' is disingenuous (or ignorant) in the extreme.

Are professional neuropsychologists now--for political correctness' sake--on the verge of putting in writing that they don't believe that, say,

neuropsychology is superior to phrenology, mesmerism, spiritualism (OBJECTIVELY SO...not just 'sociopolitically' and not arbitrarily)???

Should we replace objective testing (and statistical analysis of neuropsychological performance), neurology, biochemistry, advanced imaging techniques with...what? Phrenological analysis? Jungian analysis? Focus groups? Ouija boards? Nordic runestones and chicken bones?

Really???

This is just so incredibly sad (but fascinating) to witness. The madness of it, I mean. Like, on a mass scale.