What is the offensive, racially insensitive and inappropriate comment that was made during a CE session at INS by a presenter?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
So your point is that 1) non-black people should be able to use the N-word, or 2) take the word away from Black people entirely, or 3) no one uses the word at all? You spoke vaguely, so I just want to understand exactly what you mean. Because I don’t understand where the arbitrary rules come in, in terms of usage of the N-word. I think the rules are pretty clear to anybody who has spent more than one week in the United States. One can’t call the rules “arbitrary” just because they or others can’t participate.

Yes.

Members don't see this ad.
 
So your point is that 1) non-black people should be able to use the N-word, or 2) take the word away from Black people entirely, or 3) no one uses the word at all? You spoke vaguely, so I just want to understand exactly what you mean. Because I don’t understand where the arbitrary rules come in, in terms of usage of the N-word. I think the rules are pretty clear to anybody who has spent more than one week in the United States. One can’t call the rules “arbitrary” just because they or others can’t participate.


You just outlined where the arbitrary rules come in when asking if he means 1,2, or 3. If the rules were clear to all, then this thread would not have been started as the incident would not have happened. So, can we get some leadership and guidance on the matter rather than after the fact apologies based on how the political wind are blowing? Or do you believe that the apologies would have happened without the reactions from others happening first?
 
You just outlined where the arbitrary rules come in when asking if he means 1,2, or 3. If the rules were clear to all, then this thread would not have been started as the incident would not have happened. So, can we get some leadership and guidance on the matter rather than after the fact apologies based on how the political wind are blowing? Or do you believe that the apologies would have happened without the reactions from others happening first?

You would say that, as a white dude.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Psychologists are fallible sure. Assuming there is no other issue at play here that caused that person to lose control over things coming out of their mouth, an N-word didn't spawn out of fatigue, jetlag, intoxication, or momentary lapse of judgement. It is a racism word that comes from having racist beliefs.
Yep. None of those things have deleterious impact on executive functioning, inhibition, or lexical retrieval.

I hope you aren't licensed, and if you're a student, you need more biological bases of behavior work.

Again, this is evidence of wokism being divorced from objective scientific findings.

I can prove your thesis wrong instantly: What is Coprolalia, cursing and inappropriate language gestures

By the way, I think we're all racist and have racist beliefs, even you. You are just avoiding your shadow impulses by calling others racist. You don't get the moral high ground by calling someone racist. That's easy. You get moral high ground when you recognize your own racist tendencies and tame them under a unifying value system that continues to guide your behavior. Thoughts are thoughts. Behavior is what matters. You just feel comfortable being racist when it is socially safe (e.g., when we're stereotyping/discriminating against politically safe groups) because you haven't figured out why racism is bad to yourself yet.
 
And what gives you the authority to opine on an in-group’s usage of a word that has unique historical significance to them, and has been fashioned into a term of endearment and empowerment as a testimony to their sordid history in this country? What entitles you to deem its usage unnecessary just because you can’t use it? Is this a case of if you don’t invite me to your party, then I’m going to burn the entire building down? Please elaborate. Your blithe one word Response conveyed little.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
You just outlined where the arbitrary rules come in when asking if he means 1,2, or 3. If the rules were clear to all, then this thread would not have been started as the incident would not have happened. So, can we get some leadership and guidance on the matter rather than after the fact apologies based on how the political wind are blowing? Or do you believe that the apologies would have happened without the reactions from others happening first?
I wasn’t outlining arbitrary rules, the rules have always and will always be very clear. One, two, and three were examples of typical distractions people use when it comes to colonizing use of the word by ingroup members. Didn’t think they would be taken literally, except by people who actually think they deserve to dictate how another group uses their own self-referential historically significant terms, which brings me back to my point.

I would love to know how many out of 100 average Americans you think would answer in the affirmative if asked is it appropriate for a non-black person to use that word. Not if they would use it, but if they think it is appropriate/socially accepted to.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
And what gives you the authority to opine on an in-group’s usage of a word that has unique historical significance to them, and has been fashioned into a term of endearment and empowerment as a testimony to their sordid history in this country? What entitles you to deem its usage unnecessary just because you can’t use it? Is this a case of if you don’t invite me to your party, then I’m going to burn the entire building down? Please elaborate. Your blithe one word Response conveyed little.

I have no authority to dictate anyone's usage of a word, which is exactly my point. I don't believe that a word's appropriateness rests in someone's group identification, but rather the context and their intent. Pretty simple, really.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Someone says something offensive. Psychologists spend a month discussing how they feel about it.

This is the reason our profession gets nowhere.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 11 users
The lack of response during the presentation is human, unsurprising and not indicative of racist views held by the presenters or the audience. It was a shocking word to hear in a professional context. It takes a bit to think through it, there's an audience, and it's not always clear what the right course of action is.
absolutely true. But it is also an example of how toxic environments are perpetuated, Regardless of which group was affected.
 
Someone says something offensive. Psychologists spend a month discussing how they feel about it.

This is the reason our profession gets nowhere.
I can’t disagree with that. Nobody’s teaching anyone anything new here.
 
I wasn’t outlining arbitrary rules, the rules have always and will always be very clear. One, two, and three were examples of typical distractions people use when it comes to colonizing use of the word by ingroup members. Didn’t think they would be taken literally, except by people who actually think they deserve to dictate how another group uses their own self-referential historically significant terms, which brings me back to my point.

I would love to know how many out of 100 average Americans you think would answer in the affirmative if asked is it appropriate for a non-black person to use that word. Not if they would use it, but if they think it is appropriate/socially accepted to.

So what is the rule then if it is so clear? State it in definitive terms. And if someone disagrees with you, god help you.

Also, black and non-black is not a cut and dry concept. Plenty of North Africans and Latino people that do not identify as black even though they look like they are. Can they use the term or not? How about Nkechi Amare Diallo aka Rachel Dolezal?
 
Members don't see this ad :)
So what is the rule then if it is so clear? State it in definitive terms. And if someone disagrees with you, god help you.

Also, black and non-black is not a cut and dry concept. Plenty of North Africans and Latino people that do not identify as black even though they look like they are. Can they use the term or not? How about Nkechi Amare Diallo aka Rachel Dolezal?

If I'm reading To Kill A Mockinbird, do I have to bleep it in my head while reading?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Someone says something offensive. Psychologists spend a month discussing how they feel about it.

This is the reason our profession gets nowhere.

It's only been a month. Give us time, I'm sure we can spend longer than a month talking about it. We haven't reached our full potential yet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
It's only been a month. Give us time, I'm sure we can spend longer than a month talking about it. We haven't reached our full potential yet.

1711487252931.jpeg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Yep. None of those things have deleterious impact on executive functioning, inhibition, or lexical retrieval.

I hope you aren't licensed, and if you're a student, you need more biological bases of behavior work.

Again, this is evidence of wokism being divorced from objective scientific findings.

I can prove your thesis wrong instantly: What is Coprolalia, cursing and inappropriate language gestures

By the way, I think we're all racist and have racist beliefs, even you. You are just avoiding your shadow impulses by calling others racist. You don't get the moral high ground by calling someone racist. That's easy. You get moral high ground when you recognize your own racist tendencies and tame them under a unifying value system that continues to guide your behavior. Thoughts are thoughts. Behavior is what matters. You just feel comfortable being racist when it is socially safe (e.g., when we're stereotyping/discriminating against politically safe groups) because you haven't figured out why racism is bad to yourself yet.
This post reminds me why I stay away from diversity and oppression folks.

Did I not say assuming no other issues at play, like, you know, a verbal tic?

Of course these issues have deleterious impact on executive functioning, inhibition, or lexical retrieval. But it was not the case here. That person deliberately recited that incident in a professional setting verbatim what their patient said. If it was truly a case of things like momentary loss of inhibition, wouldn't that person quickly realize what was said and take action to remedy?

I agree with you we are all racists with racist thoughts.

Also, I didn't know I was getting on the moral high ground by making my point. Don't particularly enjoy there. It gets cold.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Someone says something offensive. Psychologists spend a month discussing how they feel about it.

This is the reason our profession gets nowhere.
I can't comment on "psychologists" in general, but at least around here we'll only spend a few days talking about it before it disappears to the bottom of the thread list. I personally appreciate the back and forth, especially when my own beliefs are challenged and I'm force to either defend them logically (both to myself and others) as well as change them as needed. This is a relatively safe, relatively anonymous forum, moderated so as to not get overly off track. I think it's good to have this available, as most of my actual work as a psychologist is spent with mundane stuff or more complicated clinical issues, without much opportunity to discuss the more philosophical, non-direct clinical stuff. I also think that are profession does get somewhere, despite these type of things popping up every now and again. Hell, just in the post is was pointed out how we have moved from the categorical approach (that was de rigeur in CBT training when I was in graduate school) to a more process-oriented approach. That's getting somewhere. Debates in our field will probably always mirror the prominent debates/issues in society at large, but the day-to-day stuff still moves at the pace of the research and clinical innovations.

All that said, I think the current main issue is pretty straightforward- don't say the g** d*** N-word in public unless you are looking for things to get pretty uncomfortable for yourself, whether or not you, your mom, your guru, your best buddy, an anonymous poster on a message board, the past of future president, or anybody else thinks that fair.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: 3 users
So what is the rule then if it is so clear? State it in definitive terms. And if someone disagrees with you, god help you.

Also, black and non-black is not a cut and dry concept. Plenty of North Africans and Latino people that do not identify as black even though they look like they are. Can they use the term or not? How about Nkechi Amare Diallo aka Rachel Dolezal?
Black versus non black not being binary and being a constantly, daily, and hotly debated concept within the community is not news. You’re not teaching me anything I don’t know. Do we think that the presenter in question was in one of the ambiguously defined groups of black vs non black? Or do we think, based on the reactions to this incident, that there was absolutely zero ambiguity in whether this word should’ve left their lips or not? Because at this point, we’re splitting hairs and distracting from the points being made. We can “what if” and splinter-theorize all day long. This thread was not created to discuss the colorism wars, we can make a separate thread for that. I am referring specifically to the incident that took place and that is the topic of this thread.
 
If I'm reading To Kill A Mockinbird, do I have to bleep it in my head while reading?
I challenge you to try that approach versus saying it publicly in a room full of people like the individual in question did, and see how well that works out for you. That should answer your pedantic question. I’ll raise you two better.

If I fantasize about stealing your car, versus actually stealing your car (and getting caught), is there a difference in impact and outcome? If I fantasize about unsavory video and photo materials involving children versus actually acting on those impulses and getting caught, is there a difference in impact and outcome?

You have revealed enough about yourself in these forums for us to assume that your critical thinking skills are so much better than this, and when you make disingenuous and bad-faith statements like that as a “joke”, it comes off less as bothersome and more as unfortunate.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
I can't comment on "psychologists" in general, but at least around here we'll only spend a few days talking about it before it disappears to the bottom of the thread list. I personally appreciate the back and forth, especially when my own beliefs are challenged and I'm force to either defend them logically (both to myself and others) as well as change them as needed. This is a relatively safe, relatively anonymous forum, moderated so as to not get overly off track. I think it's good to have this available, as most of my actual work as a psychologist is spent with mundane stuff or more complicated clinical issues, without much opportunity to discuss the more philosophical, non-direct clinical stuff. I also think that are profession does get somewhere, despite these type of things popping up every now and again. Hell, just in the post is was pointed out how we have moved from the categorical approach (that was de rigeur in CBT training when I was in graduate school) to a more process-oriented approach. That's getting somewhere. Debates in our field will probably always mirror the prominent debates/issues in society at large, but the day-to-day stuff still moves at the pace of the research and clinical innovations.

All that said, I think the current main issue is pretty straightforward- don't say the g** d*** N-word in public unless you are looking for things to get pretty uncomfortable for yourself, whether or not you, your mom, your guru, your best buddy, an anonymous poster on a message board, the past of future president, or anybody else thinks that fair.
I am ALL for a logical inquiry.

However, I think the difference in energy used to advance making our profession more successful is substantially less than the energy spent reacting to some old fool saying racist things. Having a “struggle session” isn’t going to make hospital administrators think more of us, or make insurance pay us more.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
All that said, I think the current main issue is pretty straightforward- don't say the g** d*** N-word in public unless you are looking for things to get pretty uncomfortable for yourself, whether or not you, your mom, your guru, your best buddy, an anonymous poster on a message board, the past of future president, or anybody else thinks that fair.


No, but what-if, what-if, and WHAT-IIIFFFFFFFF?
 
Black versus non black not being binary and being a constantly, daily, and hotly debated concept within the community is not news. You’re not teaching me anything I don’t know. Do we think that the presenter in question was in one of the ambiguously defined groups of black vs non black? Or do we think, based on the reactions to this incident, that there was absolutely zero ambiguity in whether this word should’ve left their lips or not? Because at this point, we’re splitting hairs and distracting from the points being made. We can “what if” and splinter-theorize all day long. This thread was not created to discuss the colorism wars, we can make a separate thread for that. I am referring specifically to the incident that took place and that is the topic of this thread.

As I said previously, I really don't care about a dumb thing one person I never met did. If all you started this thread for was to further the gossip and shame a random dude, okay. I am more interested in what happens going forward and how it applies to everyone else. Because that applies to me. If you want to act like only two groups of people exist and this applies to no one else, you can. As I don't fit into that narrative, it is of little interest to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I challenge you to try that approach versus saying it publicly in a room full of people like the individual in question did, and see how well that works out for you. That should answer your pedantic question. I’ll raise you two better.

If I fantasize about stealing your car, versus actually stealing your car (and getting caught), is there a difference in impact and outcome? If I fantasize about unsavory video and photo materials involving children versus actually acting on those impulses and getting caught, is there a difference in impact and outcome?

You have revealed enough about yourself in these forums for us to assume that your critical thinking skills are so much better than this, and when you make disingenuous and bad-faith statements like that as a “joke”, it comes off less as bothersome and more as unfortunate.

Po-tay-toh, Po-tah-to.
 
I don't know if you are being sarcastic or not, but I will talk about any topic at any time, and usually all it takes is a passable free meal and a Manhattan or two (after the talk, not before!).

I learned not to use that word in public at a relatively young age. Moralistically, through parents, teachers, etc. Practically, by almost getting my ass kicked in a public bathroom at the skating rink of my local Boys' Club when I was in middle school. It was free skate, and my friend at the time and I were on the ice against the fence (no plexiglass board at the time). Two african american kids that I knew from school were walking by the rink when they abruptly stopped and one said something along the lines of "did you f'in hear that?" a few minutes later my friend and I were in the bathroom and the two kids walk in and grab us and jack my friend up against the wall, accusing him of using the n-word. He denied it, and I didn't hear it said, so I denied it too. In part because I knew the kids and had nothing but positive interactions with them, we were spared a beating. It was the first time I saw in person the anger that word could cause, and combining that with a fear of being the recipient of that anger, the power of that word hit home (at the time, I was more afraid than anything, but I distinctly remember thinking about the power of the word). It turns out that my friend grew up to be a skinhead who would have no qualms using that word to instigate, and he had some of those tendencies at the time, unbeknownst to me and probably did say it after all.
We all get our asses kicked as young men (or should) and get to decide to become Obi Wan Kenobi or Darth Vader.

Cue the popular culture



And this was really well done for the character:

 
Last edited:
Traveling overseas so a bit late to the discussion. Wasn't at the conference and don't know precisely what happened. Context does matter some here. I'm going to assume this was the prototypical older white male, possibly one with an already-established reputation for acting like a jerk. I feel like every conference has at least one. I'm also assuming this person is American, a native English speaker, etc. and knew full well what they were saying. What I still can't quite tell from the posts was the exact context in which it was said. It sounds like this was him quoting a patient. Possibly quoting a patient trying to be deliberately provocative. It sounds like the word itself was unnecessary for conveying whatever point was being made but I can't tell for certain. Context is critical for how egregious an act this was (i.e., giving a "warning" and then providing an example of something offensive a patient said is obviously very different than calling a fellow panel member a derogatory term). That said, I think true to form we are over-philosophizing something that really isn't hard.

Don't say the N-word. At all.
Especially don't say the N-word when you are at a podium in a professional setting
Especially-especially don't say the N-word when you are at a podium in a professional context and you are not a member of said minoritized group.
These rules extend to the C-word, any other derogatory term and to foul language in general.
An exception to the foul (but not derogatory) language rule is granted posthumously to Albert Ellis and only Albert Ellis. Actually Meehl too - I'm not sure he needs it, but I'd trust him to wield that power responsibly.

That work for everyone?

I'm making light of it because I genuinely think our need to codify common sense creates more problems than it solves. I think we can use common sense, accept that we all have slightly different bounds around exactly where the line should be drawn, but that 97% of us probably have venn diagrams with near-complete overlap and we can have some good-natured academic quibbles about the minor points of non-overlap while also agreeing the 3% who don't overlap at all almost assuredly deserve whatever consequences come their way.

For what its worth, I do think the apology tour it sounds like happening is also silly and devoid of common sense. If a genuine error in judgment, a message from the speaker themselves should be good. If not a genuine error (i.e., see "established jerk"), a letter from the organization saying we apologize and are addressing this with the person involved should be plenty. An email from the European Association of Bird Watchers saying "We heard someone said something bad at a neuropsychology conference and we're sorry too" is ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 9 users
Two good men understanding one another is the beginning of civilization:

 
I am ALL for a logical inquiry.

However, I think the difference in energy used to advance making our profession more successful is substantially less than the energy spent reacting to some old fool saying racist things. Having a “struggle session” isn’t going to make hospital administrators think more of us, or make insurance pay us more.
That's either false dilemma fallacy on your part or the INS is an innefective organization (or this is a false dilemma fallacy on my part and it's both!)
 
Yup, unfortunate lol. Stoop down to our level, it’s fun down here ;)

This is SDN, we generally just have to match the level of discourse. It is what it is.

That's either false dilemma fallacy on your part or the INS is an innefective organization (or this is a false dilemma fallacy on my part and it's both!)

I don't see it as much as a false dilemma fallacy, especially coming out of leadership positions. State and national level organizations are indeed spending a lot more time, effort, and money on social issues, usually social justice related initiatives. At that same time, less time is spent on guild and practice-related issues. One could surmise that it's not a coincidence in neuro that reimbursement rates have fallen dramatically in recent years, with drops outpacing those in other MH codes. It'll be kind of ironic to spend a lot of time and effort to increase our minority representation into the field, only to turn around and say "Welcome to the doctoral practice of neuropsychology, we hope you're ok being paid midlevel wages!" I wish the field could work on both issues effectively, but they seem inadequate to the task on both fronts, unfortunately.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I don't see it as much as a false dilemma fallacy, especially coming out of leadership positions. State and national level organizations are indeed spending a lot more time, effort, and money on social issues, usually social justice related initiatives. At that same time, less time is spent on guild and practice-related issues. One could surmise that it's not a coincidence in neuro that reimbursement rates have fallen dramatically in recent years, with drops outpacing those in other MH codes. It'll be kind of ironic to spend a lot of time and effort to increase our minority representation into the field, only to turn around and say "Welcome to the doctoral practice of neuropsychology, we hope you're ok being paid midlevel wages!" I wish the field could work on both issues effectively, but they seem inadequate to the task on both fronts, unfortunately.
So ut sequitur the argument is: If our professional organization did not have to address issues of equity, diversity, inclusion, etc (including addressing speakers at conferences using the n-word)., we'd all get paid more.

Wow.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 3 users
So ut sequitur the argument is: If our professional organization did not have to address issues of equity, diversity, inclusion, etc (including addressing speakers at conferences using the n-word)., we'd all get paid more.

Wow.

I think that's a misinterpretation of my argument. Personally, I don't think organizations not involved with this particular conference needed to do anything. Not their circus, not their monkeys. In a broader sense, I feel that there is a push to join in the culture wars, in an at best, ineffective way, and at worst, in a counter-productive way. In this push, which at times actually hurts their own cause, organizations are continually putting less effort and resources into their overarching mission as a guild organization. In the end, a receding tide will beach all boats.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 users
Someone says something offensive. Psychologists spend a month discussing how they feel about it.

This is the reason our profession gets nowhere.

Processing our feelings is not enough. We haven't had time to get to oppression Olympics, finger pointing, or finding a straight rich white guy and crucify him.
 
Straight white men tend to have the sharpest swords and, when they get fed up, maps get redrawn.
 
Processing our feelings is not enough. We haven't had time to get to oppression Olympics, finger pointing, or finding a straight rich white guy and crucify him.

How rich is this presenter dude? People mentioned he is in private practice.
 
The funny thing about all this is that those who actually have the authority to use the word are NEVER confused about whether they can use it or not. It’s always those who know they shouldn’t use it that deem the rules arbitrary, because they just want a seat at the table of decision making. I don’t speak Mandarin Chinese, so I wouldn’t go to China and debate with them the rules of their language. It’s a very colonizing mentality to feel entitled to the rules or entitled to have input into the rules of a self-referential word that you should not use, and should never use.

No matter, what continent, country, or culture, those who can use the word and those can’t use the word are pretty aware which group they fall into. This debate only pops up when people who know they cannot use the word feel entitled to its usage or to the establishment of rules regarding its usage.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
"Out on the moonlit floor."

Understand the significance of the lyric. Not sunlit, moonlit. Implied but not directly shown (by the sun). And, of course, there is the faerie-like experience of seeing things that are 'moonlit' (in that I-am-a-20-year-old person seeing the world for the first time sort of way).

In any case, a good song.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
How rich is this presenter dude? People mentioned he is in private practice.

I imagine he's pretty well off. He'd be in decent demand as an expert in certain litigation areas. As far as I know, retired from academic work aside from maybe still occasionally authoring a paper.
 
Or perhaps all this hullabaloo is just a way to distract us from different organizations’ lack of progress with increasing reimbursement rates for testing? While costs of test materials keep skyrocketing? I don’t watch enough CNN or Fox to get a read on that temperature. I’ll be in the corner with my tinfoil hat.
 
Real men do not arbitrarily harm others because they actually fear God and justice and do not wish to tempt the universe (they are also not naturally spiteful).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
The funny thing about all this is that those who actually have the authority to use the word are NEVER confused about whether they can use it or not. It’s always those who know they shouldn’t use it that deem the rules arbitrary, because they just want a seat at the table of decision making. I don’t speak Mandarin Chinese, so I wouldn’t go to China and debate with them the rules of their language. It’s a very colonizing mentality to feel entitled to the rules or entitled to have input into the rules of a self-referential word that you should not use, and should never use.

No matter, what continent, country, or culture, those who can use the word and those can’t use the word are pretty aware which group they fall into. This debate only pops up when people who know they cannot use the word feel entitled to its usage or to the establishment of rules regarding its usage.

I'm not sure if anyone has the authority to use the word or similar ones in a professional setting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
I'm not sure if anyone has the authority to use the word or similar ones in a professional setting.

I don't believe anyone needs authority to use any word that they wish. They just have to deal with the consequences for their words and actions. Don't hold others accountable for that person's words and/or actions for which they had no hand in.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
I don't believe anyone needs authority to use any word that they wish. They just have to deal with the consequences for their words and actions. Don't hold others accountable for that person's words and/or actions for which they had no hand in.

I mean it is a hell of a way to transition into retirement if you are feeling skittish. Also, since I am bored and did a bit of googling, this was an ethics presentation? There is definitely some irony there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Top