When ?

[quickpsych]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Honest question: when will professional psychology and its professional organizations denounce and call out Donald Trump?

I mean the incompetency and clear mental decline , as well as likely harm to others (I.e. denouncing rights of certain people , claiming to want to be a dictator, etc) when will there be a call out for better psychological screening and mental fitness for the highest office occur? I can’t imagine most in our field and based on basic ethics could endorse such gross negligence and incompetence.

I’d never judge or treat a patient differently in a professional setting that supports Trump however in our wider role and duty to society …

The Goldwater rule is obviously outdated so when does the profession of psychology actually point out the obvious? And defining our seat at the table in development of setting reasonable basic standards for eligibility to run for these high level government positions that we already seem to hold for many jobs and roles?

 

[WisNeuro]

And, what actual goal would this serve? I hate Cheetoh Jesus as much as any rational human being, but I think professional organizations taking such a stance at this time would be phenomenally stupid. All this would serve is to alienate a large portion of the public who would just say "see, they're all a bunch of left wing communists/libtards/etc, just like we always knew!" Then, you also piss off the portion of the field who are not far left and/or would rather their orgs make partisan political statements and just focus on guild issues.

But, I am seriously curious what positive outcomes you'd imagine happening by doing this thing?

 

[PsyDr]

It’s a bad idea. Our professional opinions can be abused, for political purposes:

Political abuse of psychiatry in the Soviet Union - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

It’s like how all the religious people want to create religious law, self assured that somehow their version of religion is going to “win”.

 

[quickpsych]

It’s a bad idea. Our professional opinions can be abused, for political purposes:

Political abuse of psychiatry in the Soviet Union - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

It’s like how all the religious people want to create religious law, self assured that somehow their version of religion is going to “win”.

And, what actual goal would this serve? I hate Cheetoh Jesus as much as any rational human being, but I think professional organizations taking such a stance at this time would be phenomenally stupid. All this would serve is to alienate a large portion of the public who would just say "see, they're all a bunch of left wing communists/libtards/etc, just like we always knew!" Then, you also piss off the portion of the field who are not far left and/or would rather their orgs make partisan political statements and just focus on guild issues.

But, I am seriously curious what positive outcomes you'd imagine happening by doing this thing?

Fair points.

I suppose more broadly speaking , lobbying and working torward advocating for basic standards and competencies for the job so to speak and including more qualifications other than “be 35 and American.”

Plenty of jobs and roles both in and out of the government have certain standards and qualifications.

How many hoops did you and I have to jump through and maintain to be licensed professionals? I mean I think it’s fair to expect a bit more screening for the person holding the nuclear codes.

We expect and do these things for many professions.


I wouldn’t base it on IQ or level of education, or religious views. Would be more about is this person competent to hold the position?

 

[psych.meout]

The problem is that you're conflating merit-based and political offices.

 

[PsyDr]

Fair points.

I suppose more broadly speaking , lobbying and working torward advocating for basic standards and competencies for the job so to speak and including more qualifications other than “be 35 and American.”

Plenty of jobs and roles both in and out of the government have certain standards and qualifications.

How many hoops did you and I have to jump through and maintain to be licensed professionals? I mean I think it’s fair to expect a bit more screening for the person holding the nuclear codes.

We expect and do these things for many professions.


I wouldn’t base it on IQ or level of education, or religious views. Would be more about is this person competent to hold the position?

A pharmacist says he has filled Alzheimer’s prescriptions for members of Congress

“They’re making the highest laws of the land and they might not even remember what happened yesterday.”

www.vox.com

I am in favor of a Fitness For Duty evaluation for the judicial, legislative, and executive branches. But it would be extremely difficult to administer those evaluations.

 

[Sanman]

A pharmacist says he has filled Alzheimer’s prescriptions for members of Congress

“They’re making the highest laws of the land and they might not even remember what happened yesterday.”

www.vox.com

I am in favor of a Fitness For Duty evaluation for the judicial, legislative, and executive branches. But it would be extremely difficult to administer those evaluations.

Not to mention that it would be difficult to find an honest evaluator. Look at the number of physicians that have said whatever Trump wanted regarding his physical and mental fitness.

A better way of doing this is simply to have an age cut off. If you need to be at least 35 to be president, maybe we should cap the max age ar 65 or 73. If you qualify for Medicare or at the mandatory 401k withdrawal age?, maybe you should not serve as president.

 

[JustNoticing]

They spoke out fairly consistently against Trump era policies. Those are much more harmful than anything about Trump's NPD might be.

apa press releases trump - Google Search

 

[PsyDr]

Not to mention that it would be difficult to find an honest evaluator. Look at the number of physicians that have said whatever Trump wanted regarding his physical and mental fitness.

A better way of doing this is simply to have an age cut off. If you need to be at least 35 to be president, maybe we should cap the max age ar 65 or 73. If you qualify for Medicare or at the mandatory 401k withdrawal age?, maybe you should not serve as president.

While I agree, for employment, age is a protected class above 40.

 

[MCParent]

So you’d prefer a more cognitively present and emotionally stable wanna-be dictator?

Zeitgeist, not great man theory. Frankly we’re lucky that the current right wing messiah is so stupid.

 

[quickpsych]

Not to mention that it would be difficult to find an honest evaluator. Look at the number of physicians that have said whatever Trump wanted regarding his physical and mental fitness.

A better way of doing this is simply to have an age cut off. If you need to be at least 35 to be president, maybe we should cap the max age ar 65 or 73. If you qualify for Medicare or at the mandatory 401k withdrawal age?, maybe you should not serve as president.

Age caps would be useful. As for evaluating, perhaps there could be a system in which all candidates undergo, as someone else called it fitness for duty, across physical and mental health. For mental health there could be a set of standardized measures administered to all candidates (i.e. MMPI perhaps) then the results would be reviewed by multiple evaluators with the person's name and date of birth removed from the data. Essentially would be blind review of the results with findings presented. Would limit any biases as evaluators wouldn't know whose responses/scores they're reviewing.

 

[MCParent]

Age caps would be useful. As for evaluating, perhaps there could be a system in which all candidates undergo, as someone else called it fitness for duty, across physical and mental health. For mental health there could be a set of standardized measures administered to all candidates (i.e. MMPI perhaps) then the results would be reviewed by multiple evaluators with the person's name and date of birth removed from the data. Essentially would be blind review of the results with findings presented. Would limit any biases as evaluators wouldn't know whose responses/scores they're reviewing.

Equally likely, I propose that all candidates must ride their unicorns to capture the largest number of fairies.

Unless Pearson suddenly has the cash to donate several million to hundreds of politicians, I think psych evals are unlikely.

 

[quickpsych]

Equally likely, I propose that all candidates must ride their unicorns to capture the largest number of fairies.

Unless Pearson suddenly has the cash to donate several million to hundreds of politicians, I think psych evals are unlikely.

Why would it involve political donations?

Does the AMA pay to provide fitness for duty evals in many settings and government positions ?

Overall we need as society to get back to a stance that respects expertise. That goes for psych to medicine and science to history.

 

[smalltownpsych]

Agreed that it’s a bad idea for the field of psychology to get involved in the political realm other than consulting on policies related to treatment and education and providing the public with accurate information about our research. There are a lot of areas of public discussion that need better psychological research around so that we can navigate complex issues more effectively and taking a side politically will harm that.

 

[quickpsych]

Agreed that it’s a bad idea for the field of psychology to get involved in the political realm other than consulting on policies related to treatment and education and providing the public with accurate information about our research. There are a lot of areas of public discussion that need better psychological research around so that we can navigate complex issues more effectively and taking a side politically will harm that.

More advocating for ensuring proper fitness for duty evaluating of those running for and holding these positions. No one says have a medical fitness of duty for these positions is political, why is mental and cognitive fitness of duty different?

Psychology as others have said does advocate and speak up in political arenas on a number of issues already which is great.

But let’s make fitness of duty evaluations standard for both physical and mental/ cognitive health.

Not opinions, Not talking heads, not casual observations. A standard psychological evaluation alongside health evaluation.

 

[WisNeuro]

More advocating for ensuring proper fitness for duty evaluating of those running for and holding these positions. No one says have a medical fitness of duty for these positions is political, why is mental and cognitive fitness of duty different?

Psychology as others have said does advocate and speak up in political arenas on a number of issues already which is great.

But let’s make fitness of duty evaluations standard for both physical and mental/ cognitive health.

Not opinions, Not talking heads, not casual observations. A standard psychological evaluation alongside health evaluation.

I'd rather do custody evals than get involved in mandatory FFD evals for public office. I can't think of a quicker way to just get embroiled in never-ending lawsuits and unending doxxing/swatting attacks.

 

[quickpsych]

I'd rather do custody evals than get involved in mandatory FFD evals for public office. I can't think of a quicker way to just get embroiled in never-ending lawsuits and unending doxxing/swatting attacks.

Sometimes with great responsibility comes great risks. Someone’s got to do to the job.

Custody evals sound like a nightmare even though they too are important. Maybe these proposed evals aren’t so different. 👍

 

[MCParent]

Sometimes with great responsibility comes great risks. Someone’s got to do to the job.

The imaginary job?

If you’re asking why donations would matter I don’t think you have a realistic view of how the government (who would have to create and implement any kind of psych eval program) works.

 

[Sanman]

God this the most depressing presidential debate ever. They were just arguing about who is better at golf. You know...the important stuff. I am not looking forward to election day.

 

[quickpsych]

The imaginary job?

If you’re asking why donations would matter I don’t think you have a realistic view of how the government (who would have to create and implement any kind of psych eval program) works.

I know some people keep wanting to act like psych is some taboo and shouldn’t be at the same table as medicine. 😂.

Yeah money is this and money is that but what I’m hearing is lack of self respect for a respected profession or at least a defeatist approach to changing things. And that a lot of folks think there’s some sacred rule we can’t set standards on political office because it can be misused to justify going at political rivals… but we practice in science and in data like our peers in medicine. Why not use evidence based assessments and evaluations to help this forward and leave little question to validity of these instead of relying on opinions.

If you want to talk money in politics ,
You can be grossly unqualified but with money can get on a ticket or influence the ticket.

I guess the VA takes donations to influence their providers too? 😂😂. How much were donations to Fauci over on the medical side of things? Kind of pessimistic view there.

Yeah there’s corruption and yeah there’s problems but I’d rather be for trying to get these changes made rather than shrugging and going eh it’s imaginary and can’t be developed and implemented.

There’s nothing wrong with allowing input onto the design and development of an eventual program to ensure people are competent to serve; could be approached like the justice department that is independent from the other branches of government.

You can accept the system or better yet ask why the system isn’t doing more. Or Just let other people define how and where our expertise doesn’t belong ?

Who knows maybe one day one of us will run for political office then move this idea forward 👍

 

[psych.meout]

What is "competence to serve?" How do you operationalize that and in a way that doesn't further stigmatize mental health or systematically discriminate against people in terms of running for public office?

Also, I'm not sure if you saw the debate tonight or have seen Biden throughout his presidency, but it's interesting that you're so clearly focused on weaponizing psychology as a profession against Trump when Biden clearly has some "competency" issues of his own.

 

[quickpsych]

What is "competence to serve?" How do you operationalize that and in a way that doesn't further stigmatize mental health or systematically discriminate against people in terms of running for public office?

Also, I'm not sure if you saw the debate tonight or have seen Biden throughout his presidency, but it's interesting that you're so clearly focused on weaponizing psychology as a profession against Trump when Biden clearly has some "competency" issues of his own.

Weaponize that’s a strong word to use inappropriately there. Btw the government can , without the voting public kick someone out of office without any of this; they can bring impeachment based on political disputes , without our or other professionals expertise, but crickets on that I guess ? But oh no we certainly can’t allow fitness for duty evaluations.

So administration of cognitive tests to ensure basic competence to serve is now stigmatizing mental health? good grief.

We routinely require this for many jobs and roles both within and outside government . We use it for access to services and programs for students, etc etc. We use it to determine if someone is competent to stand trial or to have custody.

Trump by the way during the debate bragged about acing a test used to assess for dementia btw. Cut the partisan crap . Trump is unfit for office however my point is Trump has shown we do need better evaluation of competency as we already do in a wide range of government positions.

My point is all candidates should undergo fitness for duty both cognitively and physically. And it can and should be designed in a way, which I clearly outlined in an earlier post, that eliminates the risk of your weaponizing of these evaluations.
This is no different sorry.

Let’s stop pretending that political offices in a democracy are some hallowed above common sense qualifications to hold the job.

 

[Psychai]

Weaponize that’s a strong word to use inappropriately there. Btw the government can , without the voting public kick someone out of office without any of this; they can bring impeachment based on political disputes , without our or other professionals expertise, but crickets on that I guess ? But oh no we certainly can’t allow fitness for duty evaluations.

So administration of cognitive tests to ensure basic competence to serve is now stigmatizing mental health? good grief.

We routinely require this for many jobs and roles both within and outside government . We use it for access to services and programs for students, etc etc. We use it to determine if someone is competent to stand trial or to have custody.

Trump by the way during the debate bragged about acing a test used to assess for dementia btw. Cut the partisan crap . Trump is unfit for office however my point is Trump has shown we do need better evaluation of competency as we already do in a wide range of government positions.

My point is all candidates should undergo fitness for duty both cognitively and physically. And it can and should be designed in a way, which I clearly outlined in an earlier post, that eliminates the risk of your weaponizing of these evaluations.
This is no different sorry.

Let’s stop pretending that political offices in a democracy are some hallowed above common sense qualifications to hold the job.

I think you're missing the point that others have been making. Yes, it would be possible to give a cognitive and mental health battery as a "fitness for duty" assessment. However, what criteria do you think should disqualify someone from running for political office?

You've been referencing basic cognitive competence, but that essentially is tests like the mini mental status exam, which as you mentioned, candidates like Trump would/have passed as they are a low bar. Trump is certainly competent in the forensic sense. So what do you think is a better test of cognitive competence in this case? Should the president have to meet a memory or IQ cutoff? And if so, how should the cutoff be decided? Is it adequate for candidates to be non-impaired, or do they need to excel? And is it a problem that age norms would account for normal cognitive decline, since realistically that is a primary critique for both Biden and Trump? I would expect that cognitively they are not outside of the norm for individuals their age, but they would score lower than they did in their 30's and lower than younger candidates. And if we are ignoring our evidence-based norms, I wonder what evidence base one could draw from to decide a specific score someone should achieve on a specific test so the president will be able to complete their job tasks. And how would we address that tests like IQ would disproportionately favor white candidates?

As far as mental health, what do you think should disqualify a candidate? Trump has largely been criticized for narcissistic traits, but many high achieving professions such as politician, CEO, and surgeon are disproportionately filled by individuals high in psychopathy and narcissism. Is the presidential office an exception where otherwise successful candidates should be disqualified for these traits? Or maybe all positions of power should require personality testing? Realistically, I would expect very few high level politicians to be low in narcissism, so we may need to start looking for a new presidential candidate pool. And what happens when a test is invalidated? Is that an immediate disqualification?

To be clear I am no fan of Trump, but I don't think a cognitive and mental health battery is a realistic option for screening candidates, because setting these criteria and cutoffs would inherently involve bias and judgement calls on which skills a qualified president should possess. Unless the bar is set so low that all candidates would pass because they are not grossly impaired, in which case we're back to where we started. Psychologists would certainly not all agree on what these criteria should be, and even if they did, the public would not, which would turn this into a political circus. I can only imagine the legal disputes that would arise if a candidate was told they were disqualified based on cognitive fitness, and the many psychologists who would be willing to testify that the criteria are subjective and discriminatory.

 

[quickpsych]

I think you're missing the point that others have been making. Yes, it would be possible to give a cognitive and mental health battery as a "fitness for duty" assessment. However, what criteria do you think should disqualify someone from running for political office?

You've been referencing basic cognitive competence, but that essentially is tests like the mini mental status exam, which as you mentioned, candidates like Trump would/have passed as they are a low bar. Trump is certainly competent in the forensic sense. So what do you think is a better test of cognitive competence in this case? Should the president have to meet a memory or IQ cutoff? And if so, how should the cutoff be decided? Is it adequate for candidates to be non-impaired, or do they need to excel? And is it a problem that age norms would account for normal cognitive decline, since realistically that is a primary critique for both Biden and Trump? I would expect that cognitively they are not outside of the norm for individuals their age, but they would score lower than they did in their 30's and lower than younger candidates. And if we are ignoring our evidence-based norms, I wonder what evidence base one could draw from to decide a specific score someone should achieve on a specific test so the president will be able to complete their job tasks. And how would we address that tests like IQ would disproportionately favor white candidates?

As far as mental health, what do you think should disqualify a candidate? Trump has largely been criticized for narcissistic traits, but many high achieving professions such as politician, CEO, and surgeon are disproportionately filled by individuals high in psychopathy and narcissism. Is the presidential office an exception where otherwise successful candidates should be disqualified for these traits? Or maybe all positions of power should require personality testing? Realistically, I would expect very few high level politicians to be low in narcissism, so we may need to start looking for a new presidential candidate pool. And what happens when a test is invalidated? Is that an immediate disqualification?

To be clear I am no fan of Trump, but I don't think a cognitive and mental health battery is a realistic option for screening candidates, because setting these criteria and cutoffs would inherently involve bias and judgement calls on which skills a qualified president should possess. Unless the bar is set so low that all candidates would pass because they are not grossly impaired, in which case we're back to where we started. Psychologists would certainly not all agree on what these criteria should be, and even if they did, the public would not, which would turn this into a political circus. I can only imagine the legal disputes that would arise if a candidate was told they were disqualified based on cognitive fitness, and the many psychologists who would be willing to testify that the criteria are subjective and discriminatory.

This is a great post and some excellent questions. These are important questions and factors to consider; they could even help build the framework for creating a think tank of experts to explore and answer these questions as it relates to coming up with a robust, fair and balanced way of conducting these evaluations. May take a few decades but worth a go.

 

[borne_before]

This is the most up your own a$$ post I've read in a while.

Psychologists focus on behavior, we're not policy experts, and we get stuff wrong all the time. There is a tremendous history of our political **** ups.

Your patients shouldn't know your politics. When psychology, or any science, becomes politically/ideologically captured, the field suffers. We can exist outside of the political games.

Meanwhile, people are condemning trump, but do you take insurance, do pro bono work, see non white people, see the kids of parents who speak spanish? I laugh whenever some virtue signal psych fully endorses liberalism, but when you examine their professional behavior, it couldn't be more divorced from their politics.

Focus on your behavior, lead by example, stay out of politics.

Have you tried to understand why an average Joe might vote for Trump? Do you ever interact with average Joes?

 

[BuckeyeLove]

For real how did the field get like this? Ie If you’re a psychologist you absolutely MUST vote democrat. How did it become this all or nothing. Because I know a plethora of psychologists who actively believe one can’t be a competent psychologist and be conservative. That they are in fact mutually exclusive.

 

[borne_before]

For real how did the field get like this? Ie If you’re a psychologist you absolutely MUST vote democrat. How did it become this all or nothing. Because I know a plethora of psychologists who actively believe one can’t be a competent psychologist and be conservative. That they are in fact mutually exclusive.

I'll prolly end of voting for Trump, but it depends on who they hot swap Biden for at the convention.

 

[MCParent]

This is the most up your own a$$ post I've read in a while.

Psychologists focus on behavior, we're not policy experts, and we get stuff wrong all the time. There is a tremendous history of our political **** ups.

Your patients shouldn't know your politics. When psychology, or any science, becomes politically/ideologically captured, the field suffers. We can exist outside of the political games.

Meanwhile, people are condemning trump, but do you take insurance, do pro bono work, see non white people, see the kids of parents who speak spanish? I laugh whenever some virtue signal psych fully endorses liberalism, but when you examine their professional behavior, it couldn't be more divorced from their politics.

Focus on your behavior, lead by example, stay out of politics.

Have you tried to understand why an average Joe might vote for Trump? Do you ever interact with average Joes?

Obviously the only way to preserve democracy is to ban the duly nominated person that I disagree with from running (only if they are winning though).

 

[psych.meout]

Weaponize that’s a strong word to use inappropriately there.

How is it inappropriate? You started this out by asking when the field will call out and denounce Trump and followed it up with using psychological evaluations to get him or someone like him out of office or prevent them from attaining office. How is that not weaponizing psychology to meet your political goals?

Btw the government can , without the voting public kick someone out of office without any of this; they can bring impeachment based on political disputes , without our or other professionals expertise, but crickets on that I guess ?

Not sure what you mean. That there are formal legal mechanisms for removing a president or other elected officials based on committing various crimes doesn't have anything to do with using psychology as a field to remove someone from office or preventing them from running for one.

But oh no we certainly can’t allow fitness for duty evaluations.

So administration of cognitive tests to ensure basic competence to serve is now stigmatizing mental health? good grief.

Yes, if you weaponize psychological evaluations against your political enemies, some portion of the population is going to perceive these evaluations as being politically motivated, designed to rob them of their autonomy and agency, etc.

For someone who ostensibly cares about "respect" for the profession and has a chip on their shoulder about psychology vs. medicine, it's pretty ironic for you to be advocating for policies which would damage the existing respect our profession has amongst a substantial portion of the population.

We routinely require this for many jobs and roles both within and outside government . We use it for access to services and programs for students, etc etc. We use it to determine if someone is competent to stand trial or to have custody.

Again, what does that have to do with psych evals for political offices?

What do psychological evaluations for kids getting academic accommodations and services have to do with this?

Trump by the way during the debate bragged about acing a test used to assess for dementia btw.

And? Based on Biden's presentation over the past year, do you think he'd be able to pass whatever neurocognitive testing you gave Trump? mentions of Biden are suspiciously absent from all of your posts in this thread.

Cut the partisan crap . Trump is unfit for office however my point is Trump has shown we do need better evaluation of competency as we already do in a wide range of government positions.

I'm being "partisan" while in the same breath you're arguing that we should weaponize psychology to go after your political enemies?

My point is all candidates should undergo fitness for duty both cognitively and physically.

Should they? Why is that? The physical "fitness for duty" evaluation sounds even more suspect. Several presidents had significant health problems, including FDR, JFK, Chester A Arthur, and Grover Cleveland.

And it can and should be designed in a way, which I clearly outlined in an earlier post, that eliminates the risk of your weaponizing of these evaluations.

Can it? How do you know that? I would be highly suspect of anyone claiming that they can eliminate the risk of something occurring, as it indicates various problems (e.g., ignorance, dishonesty). I'm much more likely to listen to someone who said that they were "minimizing risk," though I might still not agree with them.

This is no different sorry.

Let’s stop pretending that political offices in a democracy are some hallowed above common sense qualifications to hold the job.

I very much don't think they are "hallowed" at all, which is why I disagree with you.

When it comes to politics, what we should care about is that whoever occupies a given office does the things that you want them to. That's what politics is. If you don't like a particular candidate, you should get your preferred candidate to say and do things people like so that they will win. You shouldn't try to weaponize psychology so that people you don't like are disqualified from running. Again, it's telling that you're so focused on Trump, especially after that debate.

 

[futureapppsy2]

For real how did the field get like this? Ie If you’re a psychologist you absolutely MUST vote democrat. How did it become this all or nothing. Because I know a plethora of psychologists who actively believe one can’t be a competent psychologist and be conservative. That they are in fact mutually exclusive.

I don’t think they are mutually exclusive, but I do think it’s a bit antithetical to work in healthcare and vote for a party that wants people with pre-existing conditions to not have healthcare and die. But I’m a lifelong single-issue voter on that topic.

 

[WisNeuro]

I don’t think they are mutually exclusive, but I do think it’s a bit antithetical to work in healthcare and vote for a party that wants people with pre-existing conditions to not have healthcare and die. But I’m a lifelong single-issue voter on that topic.

Just goes to show how terrible the Democratic Party's messaging and some of their initiatives are that the GOP will likely do pretty well this November.

 

[quickpsych]

I don’t think they are mutually exclusive, but I do think it’s a bit antithetical to work in healthcare and vote for a party that wants people with pre-existing conditions to not have healthcare and die. But I’m a lifelong single-issue voter on that topic.

Well said.

 

[WisNeuro]

We already have several options for keeping people out of office without the glaring and problematic ethical and legal pitfalls. Things like voting, 25th amendment, and impeachment. Again, if the APA/AMA decided to wade into this, it would be extremely costly and likely catastrophic for the field that decided to do something that monumentally stupid.

 

[quickpsych]

For real how did the field get like this? Ie If you’re a psychologist you absolutely MUST vote democrat. How did it become this all or nothing. Because I know a plethora of psychologists who actively believe one can’t be a competent psychologist and be conservative. That they are in fact mutually exclusive.

I don’t think it’s always been that way. However, times have indeed changed. It’s a tough sell to believe one can professionally support equality, unconditional positive regard , empathy, and individual rights and freedoms on one’s choice of identity, and be against discrimination of populations such as LGBTQ+ while also saying they continue to support the GOP which has continued to undermine all of this including actively trying to legislate away LGBTQ+ rights among other freedoms.

The current GOP platform and especially MAGA runs counter to our very ethical standards and I would be very curious how any well meaning and respectable psychologist could vote down that party line in the current political arena.

I’m not blaming those who were conservative in a political sense and also psychologists , rather it became all or nothing because of this shift in politics from policy to attacking people’s right to exist as they wish to exist.

Thats why most would expect that psychologists would align or realign politically and practice what they preach so to speak.

Also an Edit as I missed @borne_before ’s post about saying they’d probably vote for Trump; even more psychologists and mental health professionals would not expect any competent psychologist to vote for Trump as that “platform” absolutely runs counter to the core ethics and approach of our field. I mean besides the obvious absurdity of it. If anyone’s offended that this distinction needs to be made you need to do some deep soul searching on being a psychologist or mental health professional while supporting those who want power to attack rights and freedoms of equality and for people to live their relationships and lives as they choose, all while supporting a guy who mocks people with disabilities, mocks veterans, quotes Hitler, brags about sexually assaulting people, suggested migrants fight physically to win the right to not be deported, consistently promotes divisiveness and discriminatory beliefs, wanted to shoot protestors, and the list goes on. I think they also tried to make a point about trying to understand Trump supporters, which is a fair consideration; however that doesn't excuse away that a psychologist should probably be savvy enough to not get duped and fall for a lot of Trump's rhetoric and promises. Standards matter. Maybe that commenter isn't a psychologist but just need to make the point above to be clear.

Nothing wrong with fiscal conservatism and I’m sure there are some psychologists who are of the more old party conservatives. But once you start talking about taking rights away from women, and LGBTQ+, ignoring separation of church and state, trying to ban certain topics in education , and so forth… sorry that’s a whole different situation.

These aren’t normal politics and the policies and agendas that that Trump and many in the GOP are simply unethical and unacceptable.

 

[quickpsych]

We already have several options for keeping people out of office without the glaring and problematic ethical and legal pitfalls. Things like voting, 25th amendment, and impeachment. Again, if the APA/AMA decided to wade into this, it would be extremely costly and likely catastrophic for the field that decided to do something that monumentally stupid.

Fair point however with the exception of voting, the other options address the problem after it’s begun. I don’t have much faith in the current political climate that these measures are any better than suggesting we hold candidates to higher standards. We have a candidate claiming he’s being politically persecuted by the very options you list and on top of that claims our judicial system is rigged against them and only them.

The problem , which Id never think I’d see the day where this is possible , with the options you list require not evidence based approaches , such as formal evaluations ,but subjective feelings of elected officials decided if they can or should claim voter fraud, decide to impeach or not, or utilize the 25 amendment.

Someone else on here claims cognitive evaluations are weaponizing the field against politicians and yet we watch politicians weaponize impeachment proceedings. Obviously the options aren’t as robust as they need to be and I’m doubtful the harm to the field for speaking up more on these issues is as damaging as the consequences of not doing so.

 

[WisNeuro]

Fair point however with the exception of voting, the other options address the problem after it’s begun. I don’t have much faith in the current political climate that these measures are any better than suggesting we hold candidates to higher standards. We have a candidate claiming he’s being politically persecuted by the very options you list and on top of that claims our judicial system is rigged against them and only them.

The problem , which Id never think I’d see the day where this is possible , with the options you list require not evidence based approaches , such as formal evaluations ,but subjective feelings of elected officials decided if they can or should claim voter fraud, decide to impeach or not, or utilize the 25 amendment.

Someone else on here claims cognitive evaluations are weaponizing the field against politicians and yet we watch politicians weaponize impeachment proceedings. Obviously the options aren’t as robust as they need to be.

If you want higher standards, vote in legislators to put those higher standards into law. I agree with the other poster that instituting some sort of FFD evaluation will indeed lead to weaponizing these evals. These evaluations are already hotly contested with long drawn out legal proceedings in the areas that we currently perform them. Increase the liability, the cost, and the anomalous nature of those a hundred fold, and we have what you are proposing. Quite simply, for those of us already in the area, it's a terrible idea.

 

[quickpsych]

If you want higher standards, vote in legislators to put those higher standards into law. I agree with the other poster that instituting some sort of FFD evaluation will indeed lead to weaponizing these evals. These evaluations are already hotly contested with long drawn out legal proceedings in the areas that we currently perform them. Increase the liability, the cost, and the anomalous nature of those a hundred fold, and we have what you are proposing. Quite simply, for those of us already in the area, it's a terrible idea.

I agree with voting in legislators who put these higher standards into law….

But how do you think they’ll do that? How will they set those standards. They would need experts such as us alongside our colleagues in neurology , medicine, psychiatry to help guide developing and measuring these standards.

Otherwise it would just be legislators setting standards based on what? Personal opinion, political party lines, donors? Then it will be possibly politically weaponized and without any expert standards to back up their legislation of these.

You’re approaching this as being a terrible idea from the massive headache it will cause and you’re right it’s a
minefield of legal challenges and issues , but no one said you had to be the one to do it 😁.

 

[WisNeuro]

I agree with voting in legislators who put these higher standards into law….

But how do you think they’ll do that? How will they set those standards. They would need experts such as us alongside our colleagues in neurology , medicine, psychiatry to help guide developing and measuring these standards.

Otherwise it would just be legislators setting standards based on what? Personal opinion, political party lines, donors? Then it will be possibly politically weaponized and without any expert standards to back up their legislation of these.

You’re approaching this as being a terrible idea from the massive headache it will cause and you’re right it’s a
minefield of legal challenges and issues , but no one said you had to be the one to do it 😁.

But you are suggesting that our profession be the one to do it, that creates a headache and conflict of interests for ALL of us. From losing their tax exempt status, a likely mass exodus of members, and then needing to use any leftover money for endless lawsuits, APA will become a defunct organization in such a case. Now, instead of lobbying for guild issues which actually matter, they will now erode public trust in psychology, as well as have no money to effectively lobby much of anything at all. This is a lose-lose situation for anyone involved. Even were such an organization to try and push for such evals/standards, I strongly suspect they would not hold up to the inevitable legal challenges. So, not only would we eventually still not have these evals/standards in place, but now we would be a broke profession from an organizational standpoint, and have eliminated any good faith and/or political capital we did have.

 

[quickpsych]

This is the most up your own a$$ post I've read in a while.

Psychologists focus on behavior, we're not policy experts, and we get stuff wrong all the time. There is a tremendous history of our political **** ups.

Your patients shouldn't know your politics. When psychology, or any science, becomes politically/ideologically captured, the field suffers. We can exist outside of the political games.

Meanwhile, people are condemning trump, but do you take insurance, do pro bono work, see non white people, see the kids of parents who speak spanish? I laugh whenever some virtue signal psych fully endorses liberalism, but when you examine their professional behavior, it couldn't be more divorced from their politics.

Focus on your behavior, lead by example, stay out of politics.

Have you tried to understand why an average Joe might vote for Trump? Do you ever interact with average Joes?

Firstly yes to all your questions.

It almost as if being professional and practicing what you preach is indeed ethical and right. No disagreements there.

Has nothing to do with our patients , that should be clearly separated in our roles in that regard when providing services. As was clearly stated in my OP this is about politics not practice. I would advise any respectable psychologist to refer out if they have a patient they can’t provide services for because they can’t separate politics from practice in those instances.

I disagree that being politically apathetic does much good. Meanwhile those more active in politics who are not
experts in anything , are working to dismantle the very respect, authority, and value of expertise science and other fields offer. We can’t exist outside the political realm when the political realm actively goes against what we’re trying to do and provide.

There’s a few replies on here worried about public opinion on our field. Hate to burst bubbles but there’s a lot of people who have strong opinions against our field, oh well. We can still lead by example, speak up , and do everything right and still have detractors.


I mean let’s be real, there’s people who discount medical doctors, infectious disease experts, legal scholars, scientists, you name it. Their opinion about them are wrong but the problem is when those opinions lead to people believing the opinions rather than the facts and voting in people who will legislate based on feelings and non expertise approaches.

 

[quickpsych]

But you are suggesting that our profession be the one to do it, that creates a headache and conflict of interests for ALL of us. From losing their tax exempt status, a likely mass exodus of members, and then needing to use any leftover money for endless lawsuits, APA will become a defunct organization in such a case. Now, instead of lobbying for guild issues which actually matter, they will now erode public trust in psychology, as well as have no money to effectively lobby much of anything at all. This is a lose-lose situation for anyone involved. Even were such an organization to try and push for such evals/standards, I strongly suspect they would not hold up to the inevitable legal challenges. So, not only would we eventually still not have these evals/standards in place, but now we would be a broke profession from an organizational standpoint, and have eliminated any good faith and/or political capital we did have.

Counterpoint: Politics that continue to strip away rights and freedoms may lead to limiting our work or respect anyways and then people will ask, why didn’t experts in X field do more ? Maybe lose-lose either way.

 

[WisNeuro]

Counterpoint: Politics that continue to strip away rights and freedoms may lead to limiting our work or respect anyways and then people will ask, why didn’t experts in X field do more ?

To which we answer, it isn't our place. You, the public, have the power of the ballot box. You were the ones who could do something. You were the ones who made the choice. A nation deserves its leaders.

 

[smalltownpsych]

Firstly yes to all your questions.

It almost as if being professional and practicing what you preach is indeed ethical and right. No disagreements there.

Has nothing to do with our patients , that should be clearly separated in our roles in that regard when providing services. As was clearly stated in my OP this is about politics not practice. I would advise any respectable psychologist to refer out if they have a patient they can’t provide services for because they can’t separate politics from practice in those instances.

I disagree that being politically apathetic does much good. Meanwhile those more active in politics who are not
experts in anything , are working to dismantle the very respect, authority, and value of expertise science and other fields offer. We can’t exist outside the political realm when the political realm actively goes against what we’re trying to do and provide.

There’s a few replies on here worried about public opinion on our field. Hate to burst bubbles but there’s a lot of people who have strong opinions against our field, oh well. We can still lead by example, speak up , and do everything right and still have detractors.


I mean let’s be real, there’s people who discount medical doctors, infectious disease experts, legal scholars, scientists, you name it. Their opinion about them are wrong but the problem is when those opinions lead to people believing the opinions rather than the facts and voting in people who will legislate based on feelings and non expertise approaches.

I agree that we should be involved in political realm, but as a citizen who is a psychologist. Just like any other citizen who has specialized knowledge and training. Trying to make it seem as though our science gives us some extra power or responsibility to assess who should lead and who shouldn’t sounds really creepy to me.

 

[quickpsych]

To which we answer, it isn't our place. You, the public, have the power of the ballot box. You were the ones who could do something. You were the ones who made the choice. A nation deserves its leaders.

To which we answer, it isn't our place. You, the public, have the power of the ballot box. You were the ones who could do something. You were the ones who made the choice. A nation deserves its leaders.

Too apathetic for me. Would rather speak up rather than wonder why we didn’t if it reaches a point of being too late.

 

[MCParent]

Too apathetic for me. Would rather speak up rather than wonder why we didn’t if it reaches a point of being too late.

But you’re not speaking up. You’re making up a fantasy scenario on an Internet forum.

 

[quickpsych]

I agree that we should be involved in political realm, but as a citizen who is a psychologist. Just like any other citizen who has specialized knowledge and training. Trying to make it seem as though our science gives us some extra power or responsibility to assess who should lead and who shouldn’t sounds really creepy to me.

Extra powers? I’m talking about evidence based and well regarded assessment measures.

There’s plenty of citizens with specialized knowledge and training that speak up, and some get **** on by uninformed ignorance (ie Fauci).

I’m kind of disappointed with the sense of apathy across this thread and what sounds like a lot of folks that don’t think their profession can offer some expertise in helping these issues.

End of day I agree with @WisNeuro that we should seek to support and vote for legislators that will create better standards and expectations for being qualified for office , but I stand by going further and logically based that those standards need to be based on expertise, evidence, and facts.

 

[WisNeuro]

Extra powers? I’m talking about evidence based and well regarded assessment measures.

There’s plenty of citizens with specialized knowledge and training that speak up, and some get **** on by uninformed ignorance (ie Fauci).

I’m kind of disappointed with the sense of apathy across this thread and what sounds like a lot of folks that don’t think their profession can offer some expertise in helping these issues.

End of day I agree with @WisNeuro that we should seek to support and vote for legislators that will create better standards and expectations for being qualified for office , but I stand by going further and logically based that those standards need to be based on expertise, evidence, and facts.

Let us know how far you get in this endeavor. If it gets any wheels, I'll be one of the many psychologists across the political spectrum staunchly opposed to such a ploy.

 

[quickpsych]

But you’re not speaking up. You’re making up a fantasy scenario on an Internet forum.

Good maybe others will read this and start realizing the importance here. Thats the least one can do by posting.

Also I’m also speaking up on these issues in other ways and who knows maybe I’ll start being more public in my experience as a psychologist calling for these common sense standards. Or maybe even run for office and put these ideas forth to get tangible conversations going.

Would rather do something that just pretend like psychology shouldn’t be part of the conversation.

After all there’s a lot of misinformation and straight up falsehoods being spread by those who people believe because they have a platform not any knowledge. And some of those have power to change laws to benefit their personal views and opinions to the detriment of other’s rights.

I think you know there’s been points in history where people asked, why didn’t someone say something or speak up or try to least try?

 

[quickpsych]

Let us know how far you get in this endeavor. If it gets any wheels, I'll be one of the many psychologists across the political spectrum staunchly opposed to such a ploy.

I have to say I’m kind of surprised given your history on here and expertise.

Who else in other roles should be exempt from common sense fitness of duty?

So you want to be dismissed rather than heard? Or do you support lack of standards in our leadership? Or do you think this is just politics as usual and there’s no concern?

What exactly are these psychologists you speak of staunching opposing? A perceived threat to what , your bottom line?

Such negativity.

 

[WisNeuro]

I have to say I’m kind of surprised given your history on here and expertise.

So you want to be dismissed rather than heard? Or do you support lack of standards in our leadership? Or do you naively think this is just politics as usual and there’s no concern?

You shouldn't be surprised, this is pretty consistent with my postings. I don't want to be dismissed at all, I want to be heard through the proper channels. If anything, I want to avoid the field of psychology being dismissed altogether if it goes down this road where it doesn't belong.

I'm fully on board with standards of leadership. But I firmly believe that is up to voters to decide. Not a professional organization with an agenda.

 

[quickpsych]

You shouldn't be surprised, this is pretty consistent with my postings. I don't want to be dismissed at all, I want to be heard through the proper channels. If anything, I want to avoid the field of psychology being dismissed altogether if it goes down this road where it doesn't belong.

I'm fully on board with standards of leadership. But I firmly believe that is up to voters to decide. Not a professional organization with an agenda.

Fair enough if you think the APA shouldn’t get involved more.

In a broader look we’re seeing more and more attacks on science, on medicine, on psychology. From people in positions to make the laws. You think by keeping psychology outside the fray would stop the march towards dismissing us as frauds as they’ve done to medical professionals, scientists, etc? The proper channels, how long will they continue to exist?

I’m not all doom and gloom but you can’t look at current politics and not have some concern that legislators are legislating us and others out of the conversation.

But I can see your point to not let agendas overtake setting standards.