What is the role of psychologists in reducing injustice and increasing social justice?

[Fan_of_Meehl]

Actually systemic racism did benefit her (it gave her power in a situation where she may have felt powerless), ubiquitous cell video did her in.

LOL. And grotesque footage it was. A privileged, elitist, power-tripping, sanctimonious, white female implicitly threatening an African-American man with violence (via her 'proxy' the hypothetical cop) whilst simultaneously nearly choking her dog to death in her fit of rage phoning 911.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Sanman]

LOL. And grotesque footage it was. A privileged, elitist, power-tripping, sanctimonious, white female implicitly threatening an African-American man with violence (via her 'proxy' the hypothetical cop) whilst simultaneously nearly choking her dog to death in her fit of rage phoning 911.

And would anyone outside of his personal circle of friends and family have believed him without the video? That is white female privilege and power at work. I doubt she wants what she may see as her only vestige of power in such a situation taken away from her.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

And would anyone outside of his personal circle of friends and family have believed him without the video? That is white female privilege and power at work. I doubt she wants what she may see as her only vestige of power ins such a situation taken away from her.

So we're agreeing that racism, bias, and privilege exist in society and are even occasionally practiced by individuals who aren't white males? So many dimensions of categorical membership to classify individuals upon in a search for 'privileged' vs. 'oppressed.' It's hard work, especially considering the fact that the predicate 'unearned' has to be silently appended as a prefix to the term 'privilege.'

 

[WisNeuro]

So we're agreeing that racism, bias, and privilege exist in society and are even occasionally practiced by individuals who aren't white males? So many dimensions of categorical membership to classify individuals upon in a search for 'privileged' vs. 'oppressed.' It's hard work, especially considering the fact that the predicate 'unearned' has to be silently appended as a prefix to the term 'privilege.'

This isn't a fact, though. While I'm sure some people believe that, many more do not.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

That's fine, but that's where the debate needs to be. There are, of course, other articles that show the opposite. But, that's immaterial. Relative to your comment, do you feel the same way regarding white people who cross the street (non-covid era) when they see a black man, or that lock their car doors, or that call the cops because they feel threatened? Seems to me that there's a lot of fear being sold for political gain at the moment.

This is an interesting discussion.

Resolution of apparent paradoxes in the race-specific frequency of use-of-force by police - Humanities and Social Sciences Communications

Analyses of racial disparities in police use-of-force against unarmed individuals are central to public policy interventions; however, recent studies have come to apparently paradoxical findings concerning the existence and form of such disparities. Although anti-black racial disparities in U.S...

www.nature.com

The issue is complicated.

There is an entire major political party platform built upon fear, hate, & straight up bigotry. The other major platforms are from Democrats, the Green Party, & Libertarians. It's that clear.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

This isn't a fact, though. While I'm sure some people believe that, many more do not.

But it seems implicit when 'privilege' is almost always used in a derogatory manner to describe those who 'have' it.

I wonder what the overlap (and disjunction) between the term 'privilege' and 'merit' or 'virtue' or 'agency' is in many of these discussions. In context (discussions of 'social justice') 'privilege' isn't meant as a complimentary (or even a neutral) descriptor.

 

[WisNeuro]

There is an entire major political party platform built upon fear, hate, & straight up bigotry. The other major platforms are from Democrats, the Green Party, & Libertarians. It's that clear.

"They're coming to take your guns! Now make sure to donate money to the NRA/propaganda arm of the GOP!"

 

[WisNeuro]

But it seems implicit when 'privilege' is almost always used in a derogatory manner to describe those who 'have' it.

I wonder what the overlap (and disjunction) between the term 'privilege' and 'merit' or 'virtue' or 'agency' is in many of these discussions. In context (discussions of 'social justice') 'privilege' isn't meant as a complimentary (or even a neutral) descriptor.

May be a difference in who you are talking to. I haven't had it used in conversations very often in a derogatory manner. More that it's a continuous concept, not binary. And, there are many types of privilege. For example, high SES can be a privilege factor. Much easier to get an education when you can pay large sums of money, even if you don't actually have the academic standing for that education. Just ask any of the Trump's, or kids from the actors who all got swept up in the college bribery scandals.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

"They're coming to take your guns! Now make sure to donate money to the NRA/propaganda arm of the GOP!"

Both R's and D's cynically use fear (and other emotions) for political gain.

 

[WisNeuro]

Both R's and D's cynically use fear (and other emotions) for political gain.

Of course, one is just better at it. And, for the record, I am not anti-gun, I own a handful of firearms. But, the NRA is a travesty.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

May be a difference in who you are talking to. I haven't had it used in conversations very often in a derogatory manner. More that it's a continuous concept, not binary. And, there are many types of privilege. For example, high SES can be a privilege factor. Much easier to get an education when you can pay large sums of money, even if you don't actually have the academic standing for that education. Just ask any of the Trump's, or kids from the actors who all got swept up in the college bribery scandals.

I think this is part of why I find the term problematic. It can mean many different things but there are often contextual cues that influence its meaning. Can you point me to any discussions from the 'social justice' literature that don't frame 'privilege' as a 'problem' or an 'issue to be addressed?'

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

Of course, one is just better at it. And, for the record, I am not anti-gun, I own a handful of firearms. But, the NRA is a travesty.

We can agree that the NRA sucks.

 

[WisNeuro]

I think this is part of why I find the term problematic. It can mean many different things but there are often contextual cues that influence its meaning. Can you point me to any discussions from the 'social justice' literature that don't frame 'privilege' as a 'problem' or an 'issue to be addressed?'

Well, it is a problem to be addressed.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

Well, it is a problem to be addressed.

LOL. Then you should renounce your degree and empty your bank account.

 

[WisNeuro]

LOL

I'm not sure why this is problematic, to excuse the pun. There are vastly different levels of opportunity that people have, often that have nothing to do with merit. Why wouldn't that be something to address in some contexts?

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

Who gets to decide what 'privileges' are 'earned' vs. 'unearned?' Based on merit or cronyism? Who gets to play God in society?

 

[Sanman]

I'm not sure why this is problematic, to excuse the pun. There are vastly different levels of opportunity that people have, often that have nothing to do with merit. Why wouldn't that be something to address in some contexts?

I think the question becomes how do you effectively address this without essentially rearranging deck chairs on the titanic?

 

[WisNeuro]

I think the question becomes how do you effectively address without essentially rearranging deck chairs on the titanic?

That is a great question. I certainly don't have any of the answers, outside of my wheelhouse. But, why I think we need to be doing the research and engaging in dialogue.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

I think the question becomes how do you effectively address without essentially rearranging deck chairs on the titanic?

I think the definition of 'privilege' used in a 'social justice' context is kind of all over the place.

Is height a privilege?

Is strength a privilege?

Is virtue a privilege?

These are all qualities inherent to the individual, not 'special rights or immunities bestowed upon them' by someone of a higher authority.

 

[Sanman]

That is a great question. I certainly don't have any of the answers, outside of my wheelhouse. But, why I think we need to be doing the research and engaging in dialogue.

The question I have is whether we should be the ones focusing on researching this and how much importance do we lend it. I feel this is more of a sociological issue than a psychological one.

 

[WisNeuro]

I think the definition of 'privilege' used in a 'social justice' is kind of all over the place.

Is height a privilege?

Is strength a privilege?

Is virtue a privilege?

These are all qualities inherent to the individual, not 'special rights or immunities bestowed upon them' by someone of a higher authority.

In some ways, these things are indeed privileges of a sort. But not in every situation. For example, the height, thing. We know that people above a certain height are treated better, earn more, etc, etc. Yes it's inherent, we can't do much about it for that individual. But, just like other privileges, in this example maybe we can look at why shorter people are not treated as well, and, if it's some sort of systemic issue not based on merit, come up with solutions. It's not about knocking people down, it's about finding out why some people are not lifted up in the same way.

The question I have is whether we should be the ones focusing on researching this and how much importance to we lend it. I feel this is more of a sociological issue than a psychological one.

I believe it's more of an intersection of the two. We all know how much certain factors influence our patients (low SES, trauma exposure, learned helplessness, low educational attainment). It's actually integral to our practices on a daily basis.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

In some ways, these things are indeed privileges of a sort. But not in every situation. For example, the height, thing. We know that people above a certain height are treated better, earn more, etc, etc. Yes it's inherent, we can't do much about it for that individual. But, just like other privileges, in this example maybe we can look at why shorter people are not treated as well, and, if it's some sort of systemic issue not based on merit, come up with solutions. It's not about knocking people down, it's about finding out why some people are not lifted up in the same way.



I believe it's more of an intersection of the two. We all know how much certain factors influence our patients (low SES, trauma exposure, learned helplessness, low educational attainment). It's actually integral to our practices on a daily basis.

Just what sorts of 'solutions' would be on the table to address the 'problem' that people respond differently to short people and where would they apply (basketball tryouts? choosing submariners? choosing dates?) and who (me? you? an elected council of 'deciders?' Politicians??? (God, no)) would do the deciding?

 

[WisNeuro]

Just what sorts of 'solutions' would be on the table to address the 'problem' that people respond differently to short people and where would they apply (basketball tryouts? choosing submariners? choosing dates?) and who (me? you? an elected council of 'deciders?' Politicians??? (God, no)) would do the deciding?

Not every instance is addressable. No one is saying we need to have quotas for 5' dudes not names Spuds in the NBA. But, maybe we can figure out why white collar, high paying jobs more often go to those ~6'+. And, to find the solutions, first you need to figure out why it is happening. Hence, the research. I think there is a dangerous line of though that some have that we shouldn't even engage in this research in the first place. There are a ton of politically charged areas of research that do not get the same scrutiny or degree of opposition.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

Not every instance is addressable. No one is saying we need to have quotas for 5' dudes not names Spuds in the NBA. But, maybe we can figure out why white collar, high paying jobs more often go to those ~6'+. And, to find the solutions, first you need to figure out why it is happening. Hence, the research. I think there is a dangerous line of though that some have that we shouldn't even engage in this research in the first place. There are a ton of politically charged areas of research that do not get the same scrutiny or degree of opposition.

I would never say we 'shouldn't engage in (this) research like that.' I would question the utility of the results of the research in terms of 'social engineering.' As long as we're talking about getting more insight into why people develop and express arbitrary biases in decision-making and trying to increase awareness, I'm game. Good faith persuasion is fine and even admirable. Where I part ways with many is the use of force or coercion to pick 'winners' and 'losers' according to a particular ideological framework.

 

[WisNeuro]

I would never say we 'shouldn't engage in (this) research like that.' I would question the utility of the results of the research in terms of 'social engineering.' As long as we're talking about getting more insight into why people develop and express arbitrary biases in decision-making and trying to increase awareness, I'm game. Good faith persuasion is fine and even admirable. Where I part ways with many is the use of force or coercion to pick 'winners' and 'losers' according to a particular ideological framework.

Many would argue that we are already doing this based on certain factors, which is why the research aims to examine the structure of why this is so. So, we do the research. We have good examples of people on here doing research on privilege and biases, who have given great summaries of some of the literature in their specific area. Didn't seem to me like they were trying to force or coerce winners and losers.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

Many would argue that we are already doing this based on certain factors, which is why the research aims to examine the structure of why this is so. So, we do the research. We have good examples of people on here doing research on privilege and biases, who have given great summaries of some of the literature in their specific area. Didn't seem to me like they were trying to force or coerce winners and losers.

Making arguments and attempting to persuade is great. No problem.

 

[foreverbull]

This is a bit behind the content of the thread, but earlier it was mentioned that liberal folks shouldn’t be encouraging rioting, something to that effect.

While I understand that peaceful protest is certainly ideal (I don’t disagree with that at all), I think it’s important to go a little deeper to try to understand why a group might feel desperate enough to riot (perhaps after seeing and experiencing racism and race-based violence perpetuated over and over again, with police now being considered the sixth leading cause of death among young black men?). I can’t begin to claim to understand what it feels like to be black in this country, but several folks in our black community are sharing their thoughts and experiences at this time and it’s important that we listen. It’s easy to judge folks for rioting, but I think it’s worth asking yourself why you might judge desperate acts (even in the face of discrimination that we can see plainly).

I teach my students that oppression/discrimination can lead to people behaving in ways that seem to reinforce negative stereotypes (that serve the dominant culture and perpetuate racism) — i.e. groups that have been discriminated against lashing out in desperation and the dominant group pointing and saying “see?! They’re so violent and scary!” So do we just blame the group that can’t tolerate systemic racism/discrimination and riots, and more importantly, who benefits from that line of thinking in our culture if we dismiss an entire group’s experience because of a riot that only some participated in?

 

[beginner2011]

While I understand that peaceful protest is certainly ideal (I don’t disagree with that at all), I think it’s important to go a little deeper

Also, to keep in mind that the narrative of what is/has happened in Minneapolis is not free from significant manipulation by people acting in bad faith. For example the white man who was not a part of any protesting but went through and methodically shattered windows using a hammer and would not engage with anyone who confronted him and tried to make him stop: Questions arise over masked white man with umbrella seen calmly smashing windows before Minneapolis riots

 

[deleted480308]

There is an entire major political party platform built upon fear, hate, & straight up bigotry. The other major platforms are from Democrats, the Green Party, & Libertarians. It's that clear.

Now you are just making things up. There is no reason to misrepresent one side just because you disagree with them

 

[beginner2011]

yep. You’ve got Antifa active in many of these. An excuse to break stuff and cause more chaos.

I know many antifa personally, and they would not do what this person is doing under these circumstances. You have been misled about the objectives and behavior of antifa.

Now you are just making things up. There is no reason to misrepresent one side just because you disagree with them

It's become increasingly clear that the current Republican party is RINO, and functions as an arm of the Trump campaign and little else. Sorry to break it to you, my Randian friend.

 

[beginner2011]

yep. You’ve got Antifa active in many of these. An excuse to break stuff and cause more chaos.

You don’t know what I think the objectives of Antifa are.

I don't think it's mindreading here to say that you're implying Antifa's objectives include "break stuff and cause more chaos."

here, from a left wing source....

If some of them have it in their head that the Minneapolis police dept are white supremacist/“fascists” and that looting and rioting will help forward their cause, it seems completely reasonable that some of their members would do that.

This person is clearly NOT looting OR rioting. They are destroying private property in such a clearly planned (special equipment) way that it appears that the destruction was a consequence of the action of protesters/rioters (who they are clearly not associated with). The actual protesters/rioters who were present appear to be actively engaged in preventing this person from doing what they're doing.


I would love to get back on topic, though. I'm particularly impressed by WisNeuro's clear and well-informed comments on this topic.

Many would argue that we are already doing this based on certain factors, which is why the research aims to examine the structure of why this is so. So, we do the research. We have good examples of people on here doing research on privilege and biases, who have given great summaries of some of the literature in their specific area. Didn't seem to me like they were trying to force or coerce winners and losers.

 

[R. Matey]

This thread is devolving into a political spitting match rather than answering the question at hand. I'll summarize Kendler since I was ignored earlier because I will die on the hill that trading incomplete information from biased sources and ad hominem/no true scotsman/straw man fallacies do little to answer the actual question. This is an old problem for psychology with "social justice" just being the latest manifestation of the debate. If you accept that psychologists should base their work on scientific principles rather than their feelings, biases, political beliefs, etc, then it's a completely natural to ask "well, what do you think science is and what is the relationship of science to ethics?"

If you take a naturalistic viewpoint, you reject the idea that psychology can derive moral principles due to the naturalistic fallacy (e.g.: fact/value dichotomy). This does not preclude someone from investigating a moral principle, but it does keep someone from prescribing one. In this view, psychologists can only use their scientific ability to investigate the outcome of a moral policy (e.g.: affirmative action), but can make no claims to whether it's good or bad. From this position, psychologists' involvement in social justice is limited to investigating the outcomes of social policies enacted on the basis of social justice.

If you take a humanistic viewpoint, you believe that moral principles are phenomenologically meaningful, and therefore, are able to be scientifically discovered. The problem here is there happen to be multiple viewpoints on morality meaning that a true unifying natural code does not seem to exist. Nevertheless, psychologists who are beholden to this tradition continue the search. Theoretically, social justice principles can be derived from said scientific enterprises and can inform policy in this manner.

Based on what I've read and seen in the field so far, APA has always tried to have a foot in both camps because of its position as an interest group/guild/scientific organization even though this is logically inconsistent. APA also tries to train psychologist in this manner because the political optics of not providing said training. Students graduating from doctoral programs who haven't taken the time to read up on any of the philosophical origins of the discipline are left with the vague impression that they should use science for social justice and unquestioningly participate in interpreting research using contradictory assumptions because that's what mom and/or dad were doing.

Personally, I tend to fall to the naturalistic side of the equation believing that the role of a psychologist in social justice is to do research on the outcomes of policy as one source of information that an ethicist can use to make a ethical decision. As a clinician, I can participate in science-based advocacy in that if I have evidence that a certain policy has a detrimental effect on a certain group (However, you need to also let me critique the method without calling me names). I personally believe that this is the most socially responsible that I can be as a true scientist-practitioner. In my life as private citizen, I don't need hard facts to act from my view of justice though I do appreciate them. I can hold that separately from my own political beliefs just fine.

 

[Mindfulpsych22]

agree. It’s not a coherent concept applied to individuals and not really great in concept applied to groups.

tall black woman, multi millionaire, executive who looks like a model versus some trailer park white man with no teeth? Obvious who is more advantaged.

Tall white man college grad with wealthy parents versus a short black man with a single mom, no familial networth, and dropped out of hs. Obvious who is likely more advantaged.

short white guy versus tall white guy in similar professions, not so clear.

The point being broken down to individuals, there are other elements that account for far more variance than skin color or sex. And, in many individual circumstances, the latter two may be advantages in ways counter to the prevailing narrative.

only sticking to epidemiological arguments, the term “privilege” then becomes a proxy for lots of other things.

I don’t think the term has any value beyond political (where it has substantial power). It serves, in my view, primarily as a tool to enforce attribution errors.

To add to this, the complexity of traits being “advantaged” or “disadvantaged” is highly context dependent: a trait that is an advantage is some contexts is a disadvantage in others. I think the main problem with a word like “privilege” is that it operates as a heuristic about what traits are generally advantages in certain circumstances but cannot possibly capture the complexity of all the relationships between all traits and all consequences of those traits across all settings.

For example, many black men have talked about how being good at school and academically oriented as a teen opened them up to a lot of bullying and exclusion within their own communities (Accused of “acting white”) in high school, such that they were disadvantaged on the social hierarchy. They may have gone on to achieve greater educational and financial success as an adult than the peers that were higher than them in the high school social hierarchy. I lived in a border town and many of my Mexican-American clients there talked about how their skin color can open them up to negative assumptions about their immigration status on the US side but help them not be targets of crime and other scams by those who assume they are locals and not tourists when they cross the border. Being a high school educated while male who had the skills to do well in a manufacturing job was advantaged at one point in time but is increasingly less so in a move to automation. Being a woman may disadvantage someone who wants to be a physician in a male-dominated sub-speciality but be an advantage if the same woman wants to be a pediatric nurse.

How can one term possibly represent a total calculation of all of these various factors to determine the most vs least privileged, especially when context changes all the time?

I want to be clear I’m not saying that having certain traits or being a part of certain groups doesn’t open people up to discrimination, unfair treatment, or more vs fewer opportunities- just want to highlight my take in the complexity of it all and the limits of a term like “privilege.”

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

I saw a TED talk recently where the speaker shared some useful allegories for the effects of racism on the provision of health care services, and the downstream consequences. Given that we as psychologists often view our role in the health care system not simply as providers but also as leaders/administrators of the system, what do people see as the role of psychologists and how it relates to social justice/injustice?

The TED Talk
Dr. Camara Jones is a family physician and epidemiologist whose work focuses on the impacts of racism on the health and well-being of the nation. She seeks to broaden the national health debate to include not only universal access to high quality health care, but also attention to the social determinants of health (including poverty) and the social determinants of equity (including racism).

Is this the link to the talk you were referencing at the beginning of the thread? Just want to make sure we're all on the same page regarding the original post:

 

[beginner2011]

@R. Matey and @Mindfulpsych22 thanks for taking a step back and identifying where our discussion was running into trouble.

@Fan_of_Meehl
Yep, that's the one.

 

[psychstudent5]

I am very concerned for the trainees and students of color that are being taught and supervised by some of these posters. My goodness!

 

[DynamicDidactic]

I am very concerned for the trainees and students of color that are being taught and supervised by some of these posters. My goodness!

Can you say more? Lots of posts and users in this thread. Can’t tell what exactly you worry about.

 

[psychstudent5]

Can you say more? Lots of posts and users in this thread. Can’t tell what exactly you worry about.

Hrmmm....the obvious things.

Specifically:
1. students/trainees of color missing out on opportunities because they're more likely to be deemed incompetent or "not ready." by some of these posters
2. student/trainees of color having to meet higher expectations of certain posters in this thread
3. the students/trainees of color feeling isolated cause their advisor/supervisor is committing microagressions on a regular basis
4. reinforcing racist (also likely sexist, homophobic, transphobic) values and attitudes, but using "science" to intellectualize

and many more reasons

 

[Mindfulpsych22]

I am very concerned for the trainees and students of color that are being taught and supervised by some of these posters. My goodness!

Genuinely interested in your take on something. I wonder if you have any concerns about the state of of how multicultural/diversity/social justice classes and training are done within graduate programs. I'm lucky enough to have had a lot of exposure and training in critical theory (and critical race theory) through my educational, training, and work experiences such that I believe I have a pretty solid grasp on this philosophy (yes, I know there are many different critical theories and theorists but to me there seems to be a coherent enough set of assumptions and principles within the tradition to treat is as a philosophy or school of thought). My read is that this has become the Predominant (and often only) lense through which these issues are examined within these courses and training experiences. Does this match your observations?

I don't intend to present an either pro or against CRT position but rather to ask about your take on the possible consequences or limitations of this shift and whether you have concerns about the training in these issues. My worries about this are the following:

1) Students not being informed that this a specific theoretical position from which to view these issues and this being taught to them as THE way to interact with complex questions around racism (and other "isms"). I view this as having similar problems as if we presented CBT not as "this is cognitive behavioral theory and these are the principles and interventions associated with it" but just saying "this is the only way to conceptualize psychological problems and help people get better." I'm sure that although we have our preferred theoretical orientations that we work from, we would be horrified if the theoretical and practice classes in other theoretical orientations were eliminated, no?

2) Watered down CRT or CRT concepts being used in popular parlance by people who have only a superficial understanding (or no understanding at all) of the academic tradition to which they are related to. Again to draw an example to theory in psychology, I'm sure we all cringe when we hear a lay person use terms like "ego," "oedipal complex" or "reinforcement" with zero understanding of the theoretical underpinnings of these terms. I'm sure we would feel even more skeptical of someone's ability to execute a meaningful tx intervention based on a superficial understanding of these terms. This is akin to what I see occurring now- proclamations with very superficial use of CRT "jargon" to signal alliance with certain values and causes.

3) No discussion seems to take place in these programs around how to reconcile/address the inherent conflicts that will arise from a clinician adopting CRT as a prevailing personal or professional philosophy and trying to conduct empirical research or practice based on empirical research. This seems like a glaring omission for scientist-practitioner degrees .

I think that this shift was an improvement over what multicultural training used to be (Here are some stereotypes about working with different racial groups to keep in mind and yeah, treat everyone equally). However, the homogeneity of this training seems to under-equip us as a field to understand much less solve some of the most persistent and complicated social problems, no? Does the lack of trying to synthesize multiple theories from which to view social justice issues stagnate our progress? Do you share any of these concerns?

 

[DynamicDidactic]

Hrmmm....the obvious things.

Specifically:
1. students/trainees of color missing out on opportunities because they're more likely to be deemed incompetent or "not ready." by some of these posters
2. student/trainees of color having to meet higher expectations of certain posters in this thread
3. the students/trainees of color feeling isolated cause their advisor/supervisor is committing microagressions on a regular basis
4. reinforcing racist (also likely sexist, homophobic, transphobic) values and attitudes, but using "science" to intellectualize

and many more reasons

I just went through the entire thread. I'll admit its taken some twists and turns (I forgot that I talked about the roots of clinical psychology in this thread). I may have not read every word in every thread but I saw nothing in this thread about any trainees missing out opportunities b/c are deemed incompetent. Could you please highlight who said something like that? Similarly for your second point. I also didn't notice the 3rd point. Finally, what racist values were being reinforced here?

 

[deleted480308]

I know many antifa personally, and they would not do what this person is doing under these circumstances. You have been misled about the objectives and behavior of antifa.


It's become increasingly clear that the current Republican party is RINO, and functions as an arm of the Trump campaign and little else. Sorry to break it to you, my Randian friend.

ugh, tell me about it

whenever they talk financial policy now I Get sick to my stomach. Despite my massive problems with the republican party I still have to object to the notion that the entire thing is based on racism/hate. That’s a ridiculous accusation

Hrmmm....the obvious things.

Specifically:
1. students/trainees of color missing out on opportunities because they're more likely to be deemed incompetent or "not ready." by some of these posters
2. student/trainees of color having to meet higher expectations of certain posters in this thread
3. the students/trainees of color feeling isolated cause their advisor/supervisor is committing microagressions on a regular basis
4. reinforcing racist (also likely sexist, homophobic, transphobic) values and attitudes, but using "science" to intellectualize

and many more reasons

You have me really lost on where these things are happening in the thread (particularly 1,2,4). I’d like some citation/explanation here because I’m missing it and I believe a lot of here would have been ready to argue with someone if they implied what you are claiming

I guess I could see concern for 3 if you take a really non charitable view of someone who doesn’t buy into microaggressions as something that requires a ton of study/response. I’ll admit that I feel it can be overblown because that stuff can generally be covered by a “let’s all be pleasant to each other and try not to make assumptions about people “. I’ll admit again it’s a little hokey but I’m trying to share some context

 

[IWillSurvive]

I think there is also an issue in some venues (anecdotal here) where someone wants to question the proposed reason for a disparity or the proposed solution for a disparity and the conversation is crushed by accusations that those with questions either don’t acknowledge or care about the disparity

I consider myself to be very attuned to the intersection of social justice and psychology myself, having chosen the doctoral program I attended in large part due to its strong emphasis on social justice. I would like to aspire to promote and inspire some sort of improvement in social justice-related matters via the clinical work I do. Translation of that aspiration into real world practice can be a bit shaky...and I'm figuring that out as I go. Justice is a strong personal value of mine so I am inherently more drawn to the topic of social justice in psychology.

However, in certain academic circles, I would have to agree that I have certainly felt this discouragement for honest questioning and exploration that did not fit with the the implied consensus or interpretation in the room. It was somewhat anxiety-provoking at times to speak with respect to issues of multiculturalism, feeling I would inevitably err in my view or discussion in some way, though I was approaching it with positive intentions. I'm sure this was heightened as a product of me being my anxious graduate school self.

Unfortunately, in discussions held in such circles, I also feel there have at times been an unequal value for certain aspects of diversity relative to others. I have noticed a prioritization of certain social justice/multicultural concerns relative to others, which has been difficult for me and other, I think.

The other thing I would add that makes the integration of social justice within my clinical practice difficult is the tension between my value for personal autonomy and my value for social justice in society , the latter of which may imply some level of 'consciousness raising' (i.e., see feminist psychology) when patient views diverge from agreed upon social justice ideals. This, for me, is really difficult to balance with treating the individual and seems like it could be a slippery slope in terms of respecting autonomy.

 

[deleted480308]

I consider myself to be very attuned to the intersection of social justice and psychology myself, having chosen the doctoral program I attended in large part due to its strong emphasis on social justice. I would like to aspire to promote and inspire some sort of improvement in social justice-related matters via the clinical work I do. Translation of that aspiration into real world practice can be a bit shaky...and I'm figuring that out as I go. Justice is a strong personal value of mine so I am inherently more drawn to the topic of social justice in psychology.

However, in certain academic circles, I would have to agree that I have certainly felt this discouragement for honest questioning and exploration that did not fit with the the implied consensus or interpretation in the room. It was somewhat anxiety-provoking at times to speak with respect to issues of multiculturalism, feeling I would inevitably err in my view or discussion in some way, though I was approaching it with positive intentions. I'm sure this was heightened as a product of me being my anxious graduate school self.

Unfortunately, in discussions held in such circles, I also feel there have at times been an unequal value for certain aspects of diversity relative to others. I have noticed a prioritization of certain social justice/multicultural concerns relative to others, which has been difficult for me and other, I think.

The other thing I would add that makes the integration of social justice within my clinical practice difficult is the tension between my value for personal autonomy and my value for social justice in society , the latter of which may imply some level of 'consciousness raising' (i.e., see feminist psychology) when patient views diverge from agreed upon social justice ideals. This, for me, is really difficult to balance with treating the individual and seems like it could be a slippery slope in terms of respecting autonomy.

There is certainly a conflict there

 

[WisNeuro]

The other thing I would add that makes the integration of social justice within my clinical practice difficult is the tension between my value for personal autonomy and my value for social justice in society , the latter of which may imply some level of 'consciousness raising' (i.e., see feminist psychology) when patient views diverge from agreed upon social justice ideals. This, for me, is really difficult to balance with treating the individual and seems like it could be a slippery slope in terms of respecting autonomy.

Unfortunately, just like some of the terms within the social justice framework, personal autonomy suffers from the same multiple definitions and hazy boundary difficulties. Many people who espouse pretty rigid "personal autonomy/freedom" values refuse to accept the consequences of their actions on other people.

 

[beginner2011]

ugh, tell me about it

whenever they talk financial policy now I Get sick to my stomach. Despite my massive problems with the republican party I still have to object to the notion that the entire thing is based on racism/hate. That’s a ridiculous accusation

You'll notice that the post you're quoting never said the Republican party is "entirely based on racism/hate." In fact, racism/hate is not mentioned in the post once. I wonder what it means that you read "the Republican party is RINO, and functions as an arm of the Trump campaign and little else," as meaning the same thing as "the entire thing is based on racism/hate."

However, in certain academic circles, I would have to agree that I have certainly felt this discouragement for honest questioning and exploration that did not fit with the the implied consensus or interpretation in the room. It was somewhat anxiety-provoking at times to speak with respect to issues of multiculturalism, feeling I would inevitably err in my view or discussion in some way, though I was approaching it with positive intentions. I'm sure this was heightened as a product of me being my anxious graduate school self.

Perhaps there is some value to people who have privilege based on systemic racism/sexism/etc. having to be thoughtful about what sort of discourse/language we engage in -- or face negative social consequences?

Unfortunately, in discussions held in such circles, I also feel there have at times been an unequal value for certain aspects of diversity relative to others. I have noticed a prioritization of certain social justice/multicultural concerns relative to others, which has been difficult for me and other, I think.

It's unclear to me what you're saying. You're invited to speak more plainly -- this is anonymous forum, after all.

The other thing I would add that makes the integration of social justice within my clinical practice difficult is the tension between my value for personal autonomy and my value for social justice in society , the latter of which may imply some level of 'consciousness raising' (i.e., see feminist psychology) when patient views diverge from agreed upon social justice ideals. This, for me, is really difficult to balance with treating the individual and seems like it could be a slippery slope in terms of respecting autonomy.

Personally, I would hope that no one is prioritizing patient 'consciousness raising' above good patient care. That's a good way to undermine the credibility of our profession, harm vulnerable individuals, abuse your power, and risk losing your license to practice. I don't believe anyone is advocating for that, though. I understand the tension, and also I would hope that no one is confused about what is appropriate in our role as a psychotherapy provider when tension of this sort arises.

 

[WisNeuro]

Perhaps there is some value to people who have privilege based on systemic racism/sexism/etc. having to be thoughtful about what sort of discourse/language we engage in -- or face negative social consequences?

I don't know, this flies in the face of everything we know about engendering insight within our therapeutic frameworks. Imagine chastising a patient for expressing views that they are unsure about. I'm not a fan of cancel culture, or bringing up something said 20+ years ago, or an offhand comment used to justify shutting that person down. This political 100% purity test does nothing to advance SJ issues. It just stifles real discussion and turns people who otherwise want to learn and ally with a cause, away from it.

Particularly, in situations where we are supposedly trying to reinforce healthy debate, as in the academic circles example above, what is the point of shutting down conversation? Even if people's views are misguided, but they come to the conversation in good faith, what have you accomplished by shaming that person and driving them away from the conversation?

 

[beginner2011]

I don't know, this flies in the face of everything we know about engendering insight within our therapeutic frameworks. Imagine chastising a patient for expressing views that they are unsure about. I'm not a fan of cancel culture, or bringing up something said 20+ years ago, or an offhand comment used to justify shutting that person down. This political 100% purity test does nothing to advance SJ issues. It just stifles real discussion and turns people who otherwise want to learn and ally with a cause, away from it.

Particularly, in situations where we are supposedly trying to reinforce healthy debate, as in the academic circles example above, what is the point of shutting down conversation? Even if people's views are misguided, but they come to the conversation in good faith, what have you accomplished by shaming that person and driving them away from the conversation?

Agreed. I also think that shame, when appropriate to context, is an instructive emotion. Natural contingencies are an important part of learning. People can experience shame and that's OK. I can be loved by my parents and also be ashamed when they ask me to clean up my room and I don't do it. Hopefully my parents still love me, and when I feel that shame it's an opportunity to learn and do better next time.

 

[WisNeuro]

Agreed. I also think that shame, when appropriate to context, is an instructive emotion. Natural contingencies are an important part of learning. People can experience shame and that's OK. I can be loved by my parents and also be ashamed when they ask me to clean up my room and I don't do it. Hopefully my parents still love me, and when that happens I learn and do better next time.

We're not talking about normal shame here, we're talking about life-altering shame. Calling for people to lose their jobs, elected positions, etc? Shame can be an instructive emotion, but not when it is to be used punitively. Also, asking someone to clean their room, and asking someone to have a very deep discussion regarding privilege and racism, often in very subtle contexts, aren't even analogies in the same universe.

Bottom line, we know a lot about the psychology of persuasion, gaining insight, and behavior change. I see very little of that happening in many of these conversations.

 

[beginner2011]

We're not talking about normal shame here, we're talking about life-altering shame. Calling for people to lose their jobs, elected positions, etc? Shame can be an instructive emotion, but not when it is to be used punitively. Also, asking someone to clean their room, and asking someone to have a very deep discussion regarding privilege and racism, often in very subtle contexts, aren't even analogies in the same universe.

Bottom line, we know a lot about the psychology of persuasion, gaining insight, and behavior change. I see very little of that happening in many of these conversations.

I think we're talking about different things.

However, in certain academic circles, I would have to agree that I have certainly felt this discouragement for honest questioning and exploration that did not fit with the the implied consensus or interpretation in the room. It was somewhat anxiety-provoking at times to speak with respect to issues of multiculturalism, feeling I would inevitably err in my view or discussion in some way, though I was approaching it with positive intentions. I'm sure this was heightened as a product of me being my anxious graduate school self.

I was responding to this quoted post. I don't think @IWillSurvive was talking about life-altering shame, losing their job, elected position, etc. I've been a participant in dozens of conversations in academic circles on the topic of race, racism, privilege, etc., that are uncomfortable and anxiety-provoking and I've been concerned about (and sometimes ended up) feeling shame. My experience is that the analogy I made above is very much in the same universe as these experiences.

 

[BuckeyeLove]

What kills me is that I know psychologists, who provide mostly therapy, who scream and yell on twitter, getting into debates, etc. They know firsthand how difficult it can be for some to get their beliefs to be more flexible in therapy (if at all) and that's with patients that WANT to change, and yet they think shaming and yelling at people on social media is somehow going to lead to a productive dialogue? nah I'm good bro.