When ?

[WisNeuro]

---

Members don't see this ad.

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.

Psychology should definitely be involved in science and policy decision making. But definitely not in choosing who gets to run at all. There is no faster way to get the public to dismiss us and to supercharge anti-science sentiment than this course of action.

 

[psych.meout]

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

"Apathy" is when you tell people to effect political change in literally every other way other than the one you are advocating for?

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

What "evidence base?" Is there some literature on "fitness for duty evals" for politicians that you know of that everyone else does not?

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

If I were you and arguing that doing these evals wouldn't erode public trust in the profession, I don't think I'd cite a person whose behavior contributed to undermining his specific profession.

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.

Again, that's not what apathy is. It's just disagreeing with you.

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.

What do you think happens to people who need mental health treatment but who view the profession as antagonistic towards them and their beliefs and values?

Have you never worked with patients who have differing beliefs from yours, especially those who are politically conservative?

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.

Just like with your definition of "apathy," people here disagreeing with you doesn't mean that they are against all forms of professional advocacy. They're just against this one specific thing you want to do that is highly suspect.

 

[PsyDr]

Psychology should definitely be involved in science and policy decision making. But definitely not in choosing who gets to run at all. There is no faster way to get the public to dismiss us and to supercharge anti-science sentiment than this course of action.

While I support a technocracy, the US isn’t one. It’s not even a democracy. Psychologists can quote science to bolster their esteem.

Our profession has a childish tendency to offer antiestablishment sentiments without reference to professional sources. Offering opinions probably doesn’t help our profession. (I am as guilty of this as everyone else)

Study: US is an oligarchy, not a democracy - BBC News

What in the World: A new report finds that an elite few dominate US policy, the human error behind South Korea's ferry tragedy, and Algeria's uneasy status quo election.

www.bbc.com

 

[quickpsych]

While I support a technocracy, the US isn’t one. It’s not even a democracy. Psychologists can quote science to bolster their esteem.

Our profession has a childish tendency to offer antiestablishment sentiments without reference to professional sources. Offering opinions probably doesn’t help our profession. (I am as guilty of this as everyone else)

Study: US is an oligarchy, not a democracy - BBC News

What in the World: A new report finds that an elite few dominate US policy, the human error behind South Korea's ferry tragedy, and Algeria's uneasy status quo election.

www.bbc.com

Well said. And I do think using science and evidence based information and data is helpful to quote when making a point or trying to impact useful change.

On the childish tendency point, it also seems some in our profession , and some of the other replies on here suggest it, tend to undermine and downplay the knowledge and benefits of our expertise (as a field), research findings , evidence based assessment tools , and so forth. And really there’s some good intentioned really bright colleagues that otherwise shut themselves down and feel they aren’t justified in speaking with a little more authority as an expert, while we watch nonprofessionals (not just about our work) just talk loudly on their platforms and spew nonsense that often goes unchallenged.

I think opinions are fine of course and I’d like to see more professional opinions about these issues. instead of hearing talking heads a la Jordon Peterson for example spewing mostly nonsense and giving our field a bad name in other ways.

Psychology should definitely be involved in science and policy decision making. But definitely not in choosing who gets to run at all. There is no faster way to get the public to dismiss us and to supercharge anti-science sentiment than this course of action.

Fair point. I wouldn’t say we should have a say in choosing who runs it, that’s like saying you shouldn’t let someone apply for a job if they meet the basic standards and criteria for the job . But we should be part of the conversation in better defining those standards.

As for anti-science sentiment, I think we’ve seen more and more of that. But the people with the platform and megaphone are getting more of a say it seems these days then people who might actually know what they’re talking about (in general not just psychology).

 

[cara susanna]

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.

Kind of hard to do that when we have a court system with lifetime appointments that can undo any law it doesn't like.

 

[WisNeuro]

Kind of hard to do that when we have a court system with lifetime appointments that can undo any law it doesn't like.

Eh, they can mostly do this because congress either did not specify in a law, left it vague, or similar. Good legislation is something of a check on SCOTUS.

 

[borne_before]

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 mean, I will use the covid pandemic as an example. Respective experts in their fields were all to quick to run into the fray from their keyboards. "Trust the science" and "defer to the experts" were common sayings. But, the respective experts were often wrong, and worse, their fray into policy and politics further eroded public trust in the scientist. Things were presented as 100%, but history is showing a much different story... Masking didn't really do anything, the MRNA shot probably wasn't needed in people under 20 (and may have caused some real heart issues), closing schools was pretty awful, etc. Did very smart, highly credentialed people not learn these lessons?

We are also seeing now with WPATH and the Cass review. It's also looking like the WPATH had tremendous disagreement but was presented as consensus. It looks like DOD influenced WPATH. The "science is settled" crowd are not policy experts.

Personally, when we fray into the political arena, we look foolish. As psychologists, I call on us to rise above the political fray. I also think there is a tendency to view politics as important. They're really not that important. Innovation, leading by example, building relationships, winning friendships is how we should wish/hope to exert influence. Focus on the street and not performative online protesting.

 

[smalltownpsych]

We should design a social psychology experiment to examine the tendency of people to think things are getting worse. Anti-science bias has been a thing since science was a thing. Probably even before. I imagine the first hunter gatherer that said we could just stay in one place and plant some seeds instead of wandering around was ridiculed. Good ideas are contagious though so it seems that no matter how much some try to stifle them, they persist.
Apathetic? If I was really worried that Trump is going to start a fourth reich then maybe I would do something but I don’t think that’s the case. In my mind, the more valid concerns are that he will move the country too far to the right because that is where some of his support comes from such as ultra conservative nutjobs or Christian fundamentalists or that he is a bombastic jerk that doesn’t represent our country well. I am pretty middle of the road so I see the hyperbolic nonsense at both extremes. Another valid concern is the wealth gap and how our economic system is structured. Excessive power in the bureaucratic state aligning with corporate interests. Shift in the media delivery systems from corporate media to independent media. The increase of AI and how that will shift things. There is a lot going on so psychology as a field should stay our own course and not get into it. That is really where we would be most helpful as we go through societal change.

 

[borne_before]

We should design a social psychology experiment to examine the tendency of people to think things are getting worse. Anti-science bias has been a thing since science was a thing. Probably even before. I imagine the first hunter gatherer that said we could just stay in one place and plant some seeds instead of wandering around was ridiculed. Good ideas are contagious though so it seems that no matter how much some try to stifle them, they persist.
Apathetic? If I was really worried that Trump is going to start a fourth reich then maybe I would do something but I don’t think that’s the case. In my mind, the more valid concerns are that he will move the country too far to the right because that is where some of his support comes from such as ultra conservative nutjobs or Christian fundamentalists or that he is a bombastic jerk that doesn’t represent our country well. I am pretty middle of the road so I see the hyperbolic nonsense at both extremes. Another valid concern is the wealth gap and how our economic system is structured. Excessive power in the bureaucratic state aligning with corporate interests. Shift in the media delivery systems from corporate media to independent media. The increase of AI and how that will shift things. There is a lot going on so psychology as a field should stay our own course and not get into it. That is really where we would be most helpful as we go through societal change.

Subsistence hunter and gather groups spend like four hours a week securing food (at the cost of things like infanticide, killing elders when they can't keep, constant warring over territory). But tons of leisure time.

Farming for subsistence requires so much more work, like 40-60 hours per week.

I'd scoff too.

I had a prof describe the taking up agriculture as the basis for the fall from Eden.

 

[quickpsych]

I mean, I will use the covid pandemic as an example. Respective experts in their fields were all to quick to run into the fray from their keyboards. "Trust the science" and "defer to the experts" were common sayings. But, the respective experts were often wrong, and worse, their fray into policy and politics further eroded public trust in the scientist. Things were presented as 100%, but history is showing a much different story... Masking didn't really do anything, the MRNA shot probably wasn't needed in people under 20 (and may have caused some real heart issues), closing schools was pretty awful, etc. Did very smart, highly credentialed people not learn these lessons?

We are also seeing now with WPATH and the Cass review. It's also looking like the WPATH had tremendous disagreement but was presented as consensus. It looks like DOD influenced WPATH. The "science is settled" crowd are not policy experts.

Personally, when we fray into the political arena, we look foolish. As psychologists, I call on us to rise above the political fray. I also think there is a tendency to view politics as important. They're really not that important. Innovation, leading by example, building relationships, winning friendships is how we should wish/hope to exert influence. Focus on the street and not performative online protesting.

So this post is mostly you saying you don’t believe in science based on your comments about science , masking, and vaccines. This is akin to : it didn’t turn out to work as well as experts thought so it didn’t do anything and they shouldn’t have trusted science to at least try to figure out what would be helpful. And they should have kept quiet.

Also I doubt many scientists care if they look foolish. And I certainly do not care if people want to criticize psychologists for doing the same. Opinions aren’t a substitute for expertise and knowledge.

What’s next people saying surgeons aren’t to be trusted and anyone can do what they do?

People can believe the earth is flat or believe that cars currently can run on fairy dust . In both cases they’re wrong but they can still believe it. We want these folks making laws and regulations that affect us all?

Should scientists have said nothing and just let more people die while they tried to figure it out?

Should we sit back while talking head politicians are spewing anti science, anti education, and anti rights nonsense while also having the power to push for legislation to further their “opinions” to shape law.

Science is wrong sometimes but the beauty of science is that’s part of the process.

Again this isn’t politics as normal. Creating distrust in science isn’t politics, trying to take away rights of people for being a woman or being non-heterosexual isn’t politics, telling people to inject bleach into their veins isn’t politics. It’s a problem.

We should design a social psychology experiment to examine the tendency of people to think things are getting worse. Anti-science bias has been a thing since science was a thing. Probably even before. I imagine the first hunter gatherer that said we could just stay in one place and plant some seeds instead of wandering around was ridiculed. Good ideas are contagious though so it seems that no matter how much some try to stifle them, they persist.
Apathetic? If I was really worried that Trump is going to start a fourth reich then maybe I would do something but I don’t think that’s the case. In my mind, the more valid concerns are that he will move the country too far to the right because that is where some of his support comes from such as ultra conservative nutjobs or Christian fundamentalists or that he is a bombastic jerk that doesn’t represent our country well. I am pretty middle of the road so I see the hyperbolic nonsense at both extremes. Another valid concern is the wealth gap and how our economic system is structured. Excessive power in the bureaucratic state aligning with corporate interests. Shift in the media delivery systems from corporate media to independent media. The increase of AI and how that will shift things. There is a lot going on so psychology as a field should stay our own course and not get into it. That is really where we would be most helpful as we go through societal change.

I think it would be a great study.

You mean anti science like throwing out the Chevron deference? Or some states trying to ban certain science topics in the classroom? There’s people in public office pushing these approaches, they’re also the ones tasked with addressing and legislating growing wealth gaps, economic issues, and corporate interests.

Bad ideas are contagious too as is misinformation especially in the growing influence of social media.

Centuries ago if you “believed “ in science you were at risk for imprisonment or execution. In current times anti science presents in the form of laws and legislation.

On lack of concern about a fourth reich , you have a former president saying he’d be a dictator on day one if reelected. He also quoted Hitler loosely by saying immigrants were poisoning the blood of America. I’m sorry but If that’s not concerning then what is for the folks on here who think “eh it’s just politics.”

This kind of dangerous rhetoric and policy ideas can leech into all areas of day to day life. Just the other day one of the facilities I do work in , there was a doctor and NP who were talking about wondering what’s going on as they had at least two patients tell them to leave and demanded “someone else” because they didn’t trust “ immigrants.” Does that concern anyone?

And look at the end of the day I’m not missing the point some make that in our work we should be above the fray. We should be able to keep that from our day to day work with clients and patients and provide unbiased, equal, and professional services and care to them. And to the point of making change in the streets so to speak, I think that goes a long way to maintaining trust and modeling what being able to put personal ideology and “politics” aside.

Much like the scientists who realized their ethical and scientific responsibility to speak up in regard to misinformation about COVID and threats to public health and safety , so too should psychologists and others with knowledge and expertise backed by evidence.

Sometimes they’re wrong and sometimes we’re wrong but often times it’s better to say something than nothing when the stakes are high. People are still going to have their opinions and may dismiss what we have to say but are we going to let opinions silence the right to make statements based on expertise and knowledge?

I understand there’s some sense of hope here from some that if we just keep out of it, we’ll be safe from misinformation and distrust of our profession. And I’d love for that to be correct.

 

[borne_before]

So this post is mostly you saying you don’t believe in science based on your comments about science , masking, and vaccines. This is akin to : it didn’t turn out to work as well as experts thought so it didn’t do anything and they shouldn’t have trusted science to at least try to figure out what would be helpful. And they should have kept quiet.

Also I doubt many scientists care if they look foolish. And I certainly do not care if people want to criticize psychologists for doing the same. Opinions aren’t a substitute for expertise and knowledge.

What’s next people saying surgeons aren’t to be trusted and anyone can do what they do?

People can believe the earth is flat or believe that cars currently can run on fairy dust . In both cases they’re wrong but they can still believe it. We want these folks making laws and regulations that affect us all?

Should scientists have said nothing and just let more people die while they tried to figure it out?

Should we sit back while talking head politicians are spewing anti science, anti education, and anti rights nonsense while also having the power to push for legislation to further their “opinions” to shape law.

Science is wrong sometimes but the beauty of science is that’s part of the process.

Again this isn’t politics as normal. Creating distrust in science isn’t politics, trying to take away rights of people for being a woman or being non-heterosexual isn’t politics, telling people to inject bleach into their veins isn’t politics. It’s a problem.

Dude, while scientific expertise is invaluable, it's not infallible. Good policymaking requires balancing scientific insights with other considerations like economics, ethics, and individual rights. Questioning scientific recommendations isn't inherently anti-science - it can be part of a healthy democratic process.

The effectiveness of specific COVID-19 measures has been debated, but this doesn't invalidate the scientific method or the overall value of public health interventions. Many studies have shown positive impacts from masking and vaccination, even if results weren't as dramatic as initially hoped. I think scientists knew this, but they sure did a poor job of describing limitations. In our field, we are ethically bound to acknowledge the limits and scope of our interventions. We're also bound to make sure, via informed consent, the potential foreseeable limitations and negative consequences of our interventions and to communicate that.

When scientists failed to do during the pandemic, they hurt themselves. Transparent communication of evolving scientific understanding is crucial, even if it means revising earlier statements. This is where the science was distributed via authoritarian social media groups.This interaction was especially harmful to public trust in science. However, the way scientific information is communicated to the public can always be improved. Now how can we effectively communicate these concerns right now?

While maintaining trust in key institutions is important, blind faith isn't the answer. Healthy skepticism and accountability are necessary in any field, including medicine and science. Using knee surgeries as an example, they often suck, fail to resolve pain, etc. Yet surgeons do them all the time.

Being wrong sometimes is part of the scientific process. However, it's important to recognize that this process can be messy and confusing to the public, especially during a crisis. But by failing to acknowledge this possibility trust was undermined.

There are distinct issues (COVID-19 measures, LGBTQ+ rights, election integrity) which, while all controversial, are separate topics that shouldn't necessarily be lumped together. Extreme examples (flat earth, cars running on fairy dust) to characterize those who disagree with certain scientific or policy positions, is dismissive, counterproductive and further polarize discussions.

But let's apply it to your example of trump. Why does the Goldwater rule exist? Have you personally examined him? Or are things being filtered through your favorite websites/news outlets/social media?

 

[quickpsych]

Dude, while scientific expertise is invaluable, it's not infallible. Good policymaking requires balancing scientific insights with other considerations like economics, ethics, and individual rights. Questioning scientific recommendations isn't inherently anti-science - it can be part of a healthy democratic process.

The effectiveness of specific COVID-19 measures has been debated, but this doesn't invalidate the scientific method or the overall value of public health interventions. Many studies have shown positive impacts from masking and vaccination, even if results weren't as dramatic as initially hoped. I think scientists knew this, but they sure did a poor job of describing limitations. In our field, we are ethically bound to acknowledge the limits and scope of our interventions. We're also bound to make sure, via informed consent, the potential foreseeable limitations and negative consequences of our interventions and to communicate that.

When scientists failed to do during the pandemic, they hurt themselves. Transparent communication of evolving scientific understanding is crucial, even if it means revising earlier statements. This is where the science was distributed via authoritarian social media groups.This interaction was especially harmful to public trust in science. However, the way scientific information is communicated to the public can always be improved. Now how can we effectively communicate these concerns right now?

While maintaining trust in key institutions is important, blind faith isn't the answer. Healthy skepticism and accountability are necessary in any field, including medicine and science. Using knee surgeries as an example, they often suck, fail to resolve pain, etc. Yet surgeons do them all the time.

Being wrong sometimes is part of the scientific process. However, it's important to recognize that this process can be messy and confusing to the public, especially during a crisis. But by failing to acknowledge this possibility trust was undermined.

There are distinct issues (COVID-19 measures, LGBTQ+ rights, election integrity) which, while all controversial, are separate topics that shouldn't necessarily be lumped together. Extreme examples (flat earth, cars running on fairy dust) to characterize those who disagree with certain scientific or policy positions, is dismissive, counterproductive and further polarize discussions.

But let's apply it to your example of trump. Why does the Goldwater rule exist? Have you personally examined him? Or are things being filtered through your favorite websites/news outlets/social media?

You rephrased essentially exactly what I pointed out. No one said anything about blind faith...BUT sounds like there's quite a few in the GOP who want religion, which IS blind faith, to dictate various rights and freedoms. Again Trump is the canary in the coal mine that has prompted these discussions and calls for better standards and cognitive/mental fitness for duty. But if for one, then for all and that is fair and is not just about Trump.

Frankly you're significantly underestimating, the degree to which some talking heads and by proxy those who believe what they say are going well beyond "disagreeing." I was initially surprised but then see below so maybe you agree with them:

You posted earlier "I'll probably vote for Trump." This speaks a lot to your stance on these issues. And whether you do or don't, do you.

Just don't come on here pretending like voting for Trump or the current GOP is compatible with practicing what one preaches' as a psychologist.

You suggest you "I'll probably vote for Trump", you say masks don't work in helping with infectious diseases, and you say things like "jacking off my white savior complex" while describing working with "hella poor" underprivileged and low income children in another thread. And politics aside, why am I not surprised you also posted in the same thread about having at least one board complaint against you professionally.

When ?

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...

forums.studentdoctor.net

Frustrated about potential income for psychologists

This is part question and honestly, part vent. For clinical psychologists that don't specialize in neuropsych or forensics, but practicing clinical psychologists that do assessments and treat patient populations with psychotherapy, are you unhappy with your income? I have seen posts online of...

forums.studentdoctor.net

Don't come and say "we" look foolish after saying things like the above. I practice the ethical standards and duty of responsibility I preach. Do you?

Anyways this is a good read and a great reminder as to why the Goldwater Rule doesn't always apply and also nice to see some of our colleagues in psychiatry not clutching pearls like some of the psychologists here about whether or not to call out what needs to be called out: The 'Shared Psychosis' of Donald Trump and His Loyalists . Let's keep in mind no one says this about voters for any other presidential candidate from the past or current except Trump and almost all in our field and associated fields had been staunch supporters of not getting into the political fray.

To this random @borne_before commenter sorry but have to block this random commentor, best of luck to you. I'd encourage you to really think about , if so, supporting Trump and a party that dismisses, mocks, and tries to legislate away some of the populations and people you claim to "help" in your daily work per some of your earlier posts. And if I'm wrong and you do indeed vote with an ethical approach that aligns with our core ethics and duty to do no harm, kudos for rising above the nonsense.

 

[MCParent]

Assuming there was a world in which such a policy could/would/should be implemented, what would be the end result? Other than a group of marginally less demented people who can make marginally more coherent statements about whatever policy their donors have required them to support.

OP appears fixated on Trump. I’d suggest reading about zeitgeist vs great man. Trump is a symptom of a larger problem that’s got nothing to do with his age or whatever cognitive impairment he alone is imagined to have. There are dozen replacements for him if you’d like to boot him out. Many would be more effective than him at being terrible.

 

[quickpsych]

Assuming there was a world in which such a policy could/would/should be implemented, what would be the end result? Other than a group of marginally less demented people who can make marginally more coherent statements about whatever policy their donors have required them to support.

A step in the right direction.

OP appears fixated on Trump. I’d suggest reading about zeitgeist vs great man. Trump is a symptom of a larger problem that’s got nothing to do with his age or whatever cognitive impairment he alone is imagined to have. There are dozen replacements for him if you’d like to boot him out. Many would be more effective than him at being terrible.

Sounds like a good book, I'll have to check it out.

If you want to call valid concern for someone that attempted to undermine and overthrow a free and fair election, who berates, insults, and mocks people, and supports political retribution and violence against those who disagree with him; while also supporting politicians and rulings that strip rights away from certain groups of people, says he wants to be a dictator, and admires other dictators who have committed and continue to commit political persecution through judicial and physical retribution, then sure call it a fixation. Call it whatever you want. It's even more troubling when this kind of rhetoric is used to try to push personal religious and personal biases on everyone else.

You're right Trump IS a symptom of a larger problem, the canary in the coal mine. But he is also a problem. There's nothing imaginary about that.

You're also right that there's probably much more effective individuals that if given power would be terrible and do far more dama... oh wait there already are and they're some of the ones backing Trump as their useful "tool" to help do those terrible things. I'm assuming Project 2025 is a figment of imagination yes?

This should not be surprising especially with the audience on this forum, well mostly, that it isn't about voting for the person it's about voting for the policy, the administration, the vision for the country. Denouncing him is denouncing what he claims to stand for and what he, and those more troubling individuals you note, claims to want to do should be win again

We should denounce Trump: what person gets on stage while running for president and openly mocks someone who is disabled, brags about sexually assaulting women, thinks immigrants are poisoning the blood, and called Nazis "not so bad." I mean that's just bare minimum low bar of assessing one's character that anyone who claims to be for equality and rights as well as professionalism and professional "channels" of change should be denouncing.

Again as you noted, is he is a symptom of a larger problem that can have devastating consequences and impact on all of us. Not to mention the significant threat to both global and domestic stability. You enjoy reading I take it, go peruse the Project 2025 website. The big message on that website is "taking the country back from the radical left and wokeness." Their words, not mine. Taking the country back? From what? For who? Read up on it a bit.

I think the point being missed here by some is that the very fabrics of institutions, of rights and freedoms, that give us all the opportunities to do what we do are being threatened by this "problem." This is unlike any other "candidate" or political agenda we've seen in America and frankly I think most people figured that domestically we settled this in the Civil War, and globally settled this in WWII and a resulting message that there's no place for the types of " policies" Trump and some of his backers are supporting. I'm not endorsing war or violence as an answer, rather noting historical events that were by and large seen as setting the standard of freedom and equality. The founders of the Constitution would be rolling in their graves.

And hey I hope I'm wrong, I hope voters turn out and vote up and down the ballot and crush any hopes or chances of Trump and the Project 2025 crowd going further down that path and maybe politics can be boring and stable again so people can make their own choices and live their damn lives.

 

[MCParent]

A step in the right direction.



Sounds like a good book, I'll have to check it out.

If you want to call valid concern for someone that attempted to undermine and overthrow a free and fair election, who berates, insults, and mocks people, and supports political retribution and violence against those who disagree with him; while also supporting politicians and rulings that strip rights away from certain groups of people, says he wants to be a dictator, and admires other dictators who have committed and continue to commit political persecution through judicial and physical retribution, then sure call it a fixation. Call it whatever you want. It's even more troubling when this kind of rhetoric is used to try to push personal religious and personal biases on everyone else.

You're right Trump IS a symptom of a larger problem, the canary in the coal mine. But he is also a problem. There's nothing imaginary about that.

You're also right that there's probably much more effective individuals that if given power would be terrible and do far more dama... oh wait there already are and they're some of the ones backing Trump as their useful "tool" to help do those terrible things. I'm assuming Project 2025 is a figment of imagination yes?

This should not be surprising especially with the audience on this forum, well mostly, that it isn't about voting for the person it's about voting for the policy, the administration, the vision for the country. Denouncing him is denouncing what he claims to stand for and what he, and those more troubling individuals you note, claims to want to do should be win again

We should denounce Trump: what person gets on stage while running for president and openly mocks someone who is disabled, brags about sexually assaulting women, thinks immigrants are poisoning the blood, and called Nazis "not so bad." I mean that's just bare minimum low bar of assessing one's character that anyone who claims to be for equality and rights as well as professionalism and professional "channels" of change should be denouncing.

Again as you noted, is he is a symptom of a larger problem that can have devastating consequences and impact on all of us. Not to mention the significant threat to both global and domestic stability. You enjoy reading I take it, go peruse the Project 2025 website. The big message on that website is "taking the country back from the radical left and wokeness." Their words, not mine. Taking the country back? From what? For who? Read up on it a bit.

I think the point being missed here by some is that the very fabrics of institutions, of rights and freedoms, that give us all the opportunities to do what we do are being threatened by this "problem." This is unlike any other "candidate" or political agenda we've seen in America and frankly I think most people figured that domestically we settled this in the Civil War, and globally settled this in WWII and a resulting message that there's no place for the types of " policies" Trump and some of his backers are supporting. I'm not endorsing war or violence as an answer, rather noting historical events that were by and large seen as setting the standard of freedom and equality. The founders of the Constitution would be rolling in their graves.

And hey I hope I'm wrong, I hope voters turn out and vote up and down the ballot and crush any hopes or chances of Trump and the Project 2025 crowd going further down that path and maybe politics can be boring and stable again so people can make their own choices and live their damn lives.

It’s not a step in the right direction. I’d argue that effective a-holes are much worse than inept ones.

It’s not a book, it’s a basic general concept in history. EITMLI5: two people make time machines. The great person theorist goes back in time and kills hitler. The zeitgeist theorist knows to keep working to make a Time Machine with 500 charges on it to go back and forth and get all the people who would happily take over for hitler when he and every subsequent iteration get assassinated, and knows that some of the futures they cause will be much worst than the first iteration.

 

[quickpsych]

It’s not a step in the right direction. I’d argue that effective a-holes are much worse than inept ones.

Fair point. I noted part of the problem is effective a-holes find the inept ones useful when they can. I believe the term sometimes used is "a useful idiot."

It’s not a book, it’s a basic general concept in history. EITMLI5: two people make time machines. The great person theorist goes back in time and kills hitler. The zeitgeist theorist knows to keep working to make a Time Machine with 500 charges on it to go back and forth and get all the people who would happily take over for hitler when he and every subsequent iteration get assassinated, and knows that some of the futures they cause will be much worst than the first iteration.

Thanks for clarifying. Sounds like this was also the plot of a movie or maybe a Rick and Morty episode and now I've learned where the idea came from.

 

[borne_before]

To this random @borne_before commenter sorry but have to block this random commentor, best of luck to you. I'd encourage you to really think about , if so, supporting Trump and a party that dismisses, mocks, and tries to legislate away some of the populations and people you claim to "help" in your daily work per some of your earlier posts. And if I'm wrong and you do indeed vote with an ethical approach that aligns with our core ethics and duty to do no harm, kudos for rising above the nonsense

I realize I am probably blocked. I appreciate your perspective, but I think you may be misinterpreting some of my comments and making assumptions about my views. Let me clarify a few points:

1. I never advocated for blind faith or religion dictating rights and freedoms.
2. Regarding Trump, I said "I'll probably vote for Trump" in a hypothetical context, which depends on who the dems end up nominating, not as a definitive statement of my voting intentions. My actual voting decision will be based on careful consideration of all candidates and issues. My comment about potentially voting for Trump was a personal choice, not an endorsement of all his policies or behavior. My comment about potentially voting for Trump was a nuanced statement, not a wholesale endorsement of everything he says or does. Many voters weigh complex factors when choosing candidates. As psychologists, I feel like we should be careful about overgeneralizing or making black-and-white judgments about people's motivations and character based on their voting choices.
3. The "white savior" comment was self-deprecating humor about my own potential biases, not a dismissal of the populations I serve. I'm committed to culturally competent care. I trust most posters understood my sarcasm and intent.
4. The language I used about working with underprivileged populations was perhaps poorly chosen, but it doesn't reflect my actual approach or attitudes in my professional work. We all sometimes express ourselves imperfectly online.
5. Professional complaints can happen to ethical practitioners. Context matters, and I've always strived to uphold professional standards. My complaint was similarly dismissed at the screening level. Furthermore, at least three other medical providers have had their complaints to their respective boards that we know of. Having a board complaint isn't uncommon for psychologists and doesn't necessarily indicate unethical behavior. The details and resolution matter more than the mere existence of a complaint. I pray you never experience the absolute joy of one.
6. I agree the Goldwater Rule has limitations. However, remote diagnosis without direct evaluation remains ethically fraught.
7. I aim to vote and practice in alignment with psychological ethics and evidence-based care. This includes considering the wellbeing of all populations, especially vulnerable groups.
8. The language I used about working with underprivileged children was admittedly inappropriate, and I regret that phrasing. Sometimes I find terms like “Low SES” or “underprivileged” rhetorically boring and tedious or dehumanizing. I’ve been actively trying to use plainer language for the purpose of making psychology more accessible and relatable. It’s also part of my culture and a genuine expression of the context I which I was raised. I find that my patients have better outcomes when I use more natural language to me.
9. I'm open to respectful dialogue and reassessing my views. Rather than blocking, perhaps we could have a thoughtful discussion about these complex issues.

My goal is to approach these topics thoughtfully, considering multiple perspectives. I apologize if any of my comments came across as insensitive or contradictory to psychological principles.

I strive to uphold ethical standards in my practice and take my professional responsibilities seriously. We may disagree on some political issues, but I don't believe that invalidates my work or ethics as a psychologist. Some silly comments on this forum certain don’t either.

I'm open to respectful dialogue on these topics, but personal attacks and assumptions about my character or practice based on limited online interactions aren't productive. Perhaps we could find some common ground if we approached this discussion with more openness and less hostility.

I appreciate your passionate stance on these issues, but I think you're making some unfair assumptions about my views and professional ethics based on limited information.

I strive to uphold ethical standards and my duty of care to all clients, regardless of my personal political views. It's unfair to suggest otherwise without direct knowledge of my practice. I feel hurt by the tactic of sorting through other posts and bringing them up. It actively harms the safe, sharing, and constructive environment that we strive for here.

I learn something from my colleagues here daily. In fact a commenter posted about how they cannot vote red for the endorsement of the preexisting condition. I also know, from being around for a while, why that’s so important to that commenter. Someone I tremendously admire and respect. That alone did more to get me to reconsider voting for Trump than anything I’ve ever thought about to read on my phones screen.

I surely hold responsibility for how this interaction occurred and played out. I am sorry.

 

[borne_before]

It’s not a step in the right direction. I’d argue that effective a-holes are much worse than inept ones.

It’s not a book, it’s a basic general concept in history. EITMLI5: two people make time machines. The great person theorist goes back in time and kills hitler. The zeitgeist theorist knows to keep working to make a Time Machine with 500 charges on it to go back and forth and get all the people who would happily take over for hitler when he and every subsequent iteration get assassinated, and knows that some of the futures they cause will be much worst than the first iteration.

Are you a fan of Dan Carlin by chance?

 

[thebalmofhurtminds]

My husband recently received a request from a reporter to discuss cognitive decline, in the context of the recent debate (and specifically, Biden's performance). You can see how psychology being involved in these situations in this way is primarily used to spin a political agenda. And you can see why those in the field are incredibly wary of this.

 

[Sanman]

My husband recently received a request from a reporter to discuss cognitive decline, in the context of the recent debate (and specifically, Biden's performance). You can see how psychology being involved in these situations in this way is primarily used to spin a political agenda. And you can see why those in the field are incredibly wary of this.

I'm sure someone will bite at the chance, but it always feels so sleazy providing conjecture about people you have never met. Reductions in processing speed are a hallmark of normal cognitive aging. Obviously, this affects things like timed debate responses. Beyond that, assuming there is cognitive decline that may be abnormal is a bit ageist and irresponsible. It's not like the man is immune to being rattled. At the end of the day, Biden had a bad performance and Trump a relatively good one. There is nothing else to say.

 

[MCParent]

Are you a fan of Dan Carlin by chance?

Tbh I don’t much care for podcasts except for a few comedy ones. Looks interesting tho I will check him out.

 

[R. Matey]

Thanks for clarifying. Sounds like this was also the plot of a movie or maybe a Rick and Morty episode and now I've learned where the idea came from.

I mean, Hegel kinda looks like Rick if you squint.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Mod Note: this thread appears to have run its course and has veered more toward a sociopolitical theme, so it will be locked.