Saturday, July 10, 2010

Psychological sell-outs

I received "The Register Report," a magazine from the National Register of Health Service Providers in Psychology this week and flipped through it to see what CE (continuing education) credits I could take. One of the CE articles was entitled, "The Case of Leo: Conflict Between Student and Program Values" by Prudence Cuper, MA and Erica Wise, PHD. The picture for the article depicted an angry-looking male doctoral student who apparently was not falling into lock-step with the left-leaning indoctrination of the doctoral program he was enrolled in:

Several months into the practicum year, Leo’s supervisor, Dr. J., observed that Leo’s personal views seemed to be interfering with his approaching client concerns in an open and supportive fashion. This was particularly evident in the critical stance he assumed when discussing non-heterosexual relationships. In reviewing videos of counseling sessions, Dr. J. noted that Leo tended to be less supportive of two of his clients: an 18-year old male college student who wondered if he might be gay, and a young adult lesbian who was deciding whether to come out to her family. Leo’s peers noticed his judgmental stance as well and they challenged him during group supervision. Leo responded that certain behaviors were simply “never proper” and that it falls to the therapist to point this out to clients.


The committee of the doctoral program failed to give Leo credit for his practicum. The authors of the article justify this action:

We would argue that in this vignette, Leo’s attempt to “benefit” his clients by guiding them away from “improper” behavior (in this case, same-sex relationships) undermines clients’ autonomy and is likely to cause harm to clients who are seeking balanced and non-judgmental assistance. The problem lies not in Leo’s own conservative values, but in his rigidity and lack of respect for and validation of other perspectives.


What about referring patients with dissimilar values to Leo's to another therapist, the authors ask? But decide "no" for the following reasons:

First, professional psychology has taken a strong stand in support of embracing diversity and affirmative psychotherapy. This position is reflected in the APA Ethics Code and in the accreditation standards for training programs. Second, allowing Leo to practice as a non-affirming psychologist might have a broader impact on society. In the Preamble to the Ethics Code, psychologists are advised to use their scientific and professional knowledge to “improve the condition of individuals, organizations, and society” (p. 3). If Leo were to promulgate prejudiced attitudes or discriminatory behaviors in either public statements or private practice, there would be the potential for a detrimental impact on society. Arguably, what happens in therapy can and should meaningfully impact society by, for example, illuminating and (when possible) reducing power differential- based factors such gender, race, socioeconomic status, ability, or sexual orientation. While many psychologists believe that we have a responsibility to improve society, this position has been most clearly articulated by the feminist psychologists in the maxim that the “personal is political” (Brown, 2006).


So, now therapists are shut behind closed doors to inflict left-leaning, feminist indoctrination on unsuspecting patients and this is "balanced and non-judgmental assistance" and adds to patient autonomy? As John Stossel always says, "Give me a break!"

I frequently hear from men how they are treated by therapists in couple's counseling. I can always tell they have a "feminist" therapist or the male equivalent when they tell me that the therapist sides with the wife in most situations and tells the men to "watch their behavior" so as not to offend or bother their wife. This is chilling. And the worse part is, men do not know how to respond. They are confused that a "professional" that they are paying is telling them how to "fix" their marriage, yet at the same time, they have no idea they are being sold out to feminist and left-leaning politics. These "affirming psychologists" are playing with people's lives in order to further their own political agenda. And they are doing it one unsuspecting patient at a time, all the while keeping any PHD student with a different political view out of the field.

It should be illegal for state universities to discriminate against those who do not share their political agenda. Maybe it's time to make it so.

Labels: ,

39 Comments:

Blogger Ern said...

It should be illegal for state universities to discriminate against those who do not share their political agenda.

It probably should, but it looks to me as if such a law would be difficult to enforce; the universities will soon learn to dress their reasons up differently, as, for example, "not showing sufficient empathy with the patient's situation".

8:09 AM, July 10, 2010  
Blogger Helen said...

Ern,

Perhaps, but at least students would have the means to sue and have the law on their side in these situations.

8:12 AM, July 10, 2010  
Blogger Trust said...

Dr. H.,

The below article by Paul Elam sums this up perfectly. You've probably read it, but in case you or anyone else hasn't.


The Psychology of Hate
Saturday, August 22, 2009
By Paul Elam
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2009/08/22/the-psychology-of-hate/

8:35 AM, July 10, 2010  
Blogger Trust said...

I've long noticed that unsubstantiated and usually untrue accusations of misogyny are punished far more severely than severe and blatant incidents of misandry.

8:35 AM, July 10, 2010  
Blogger Doom said...

This is precisely what I have seen and it is exactly why I do not trust... not just psychiatrists, but even doctors, (like I ever trusted, but) lawyers, and many others. The whole system of "education" is like this. I thought you knew, but had rejected at some point? It is really bad when therapists try to tell one their moral sense is totally wrong (simple Christian morality here, nothing really whack), though that was just the first hint.

I seriously just assumed you had been through the same thing... Or, perhaps you don't remember going through this and were enough fluff (left) back then that you did not see it as wrong, it didn't raise alarm bells personally so was ignored? This has been in play for a long time now. Though too, maybe not as absolutely as today.

10:09 AM, July 10, 2010  
Blogger Dr.D said...

Helen said, "It should be illegal for state universities to discriminate against those who do not share their political agenda."

Ha, ha, ho, you're killin' me! That is one of the funniest things I have read in ages! It will be the Second Coming before that happens, of that I am certain.

10:14 AM, July 10, 2010  
Blogger Topher said...

"I've long noticed that unsubstantiated and usually untrue accusations of misogyny are punished far more severely than severe and blatant incidents of misandry."

This is old hat - it's all groupthink. It's like the use of the "racist!" catcall in public debate. To call someone a racist in academic or political society is supposed to be a trump card, an unrecoverable fault that kills the offender in his tracks. Of course, the crusaders psychologically condition the audience only certain (white Republican males) can be thought of as racist or sexist, so by controlling the lens the trump card can be selectively employed.

It's like a blasphemy - when accused, you are supposed to make public penance by prostrating yourself.

Not to mention the fact that misandry is not even seen as a concept by a lot of people (usually when it's brought up we get the typical "be a man and stop whining" bullshit). We need our own information campaign so that people know how to talk about what's going on.

10:15 AM, July 10, 2010  
Blogger Trust said...

@Topher said... Not to mention the fact that misandry is not even seen as a concept by a lot of people (usually when it's brought up we get the typical "be a man and stop whining" bullshit).
__________

Funny, in most applications and web browsers, including the one I'm using, "misandry" is flagged as a misspelled word as if there is no such thing.

10:18 AM, July 10, 2010  
Blogger Eric said...

I agree that it should be illegal for state universities to discriminate against those who do not share their political agenda.

What I find especially irritating is the way the analysis equates conflates "conservative values" with kneejerk opposition to homosexuality, and "rigidity and lack of respect for and validation of other perspectives" (thus invoking the specter of the "Authoritarian Personality.")

So they get to not only condemn this particular man's beliefs, but use them to define "conservatism."

True, a substantial number of conservatives would agree with the left wing stereotype, but what about those who would not? Aren't they being read out of the entire equation?

11:14 AM, July 10, 2010  
Blogger Dee said...

This is one of the reasons that I often think that marriage counselor are the cause of divorce. I watched as a marriage counselor destroyed a friend's marriage with her feminist views and attacks on the husband, but since she was the expert they listened to her and are now divorced. It's a travesty and one of the reasons that therapist get such a bad wrap amongst other members of the scientific community.

11:16 AM, July 10, 2010  
Blogger Trust said...

@Dee said... This is one of the reasons that I often think that marriage counselor are the cause of divorce. I watched as a marriage counselor destroyed a friend's marriage with her feminist views and attacks on the husband, but since she was the expert they listened to her and are now divorced. It's a travesty and one of the reasons that therapist get such a bad wrap amongst other members of the scientific community.
____________________

They often try to feminize the husband, which not only leaves the husband less happy, it leaves the wife less attracted to him. But it's PC.

Not to mention, and not to impugn the character of many fine counselors (and even lawyers), the fact remain that marital problems and divorce have become a very profitable industry, and the more petty problems can be magnified and selfish wants pursued, the more money their is to be made.

Maybe counselors should bill couples twice... half their pay at the conclusion of therapy, and the other half 5 years later if they are still married.

Maybe divorce lawyers should not get paid until the mediate an agreement signed by both parties in the divorce.

Maybe those are off base... but at least the incentives would line up behind a good outcome. As it stands now, the worse it is, the more the money flows.

11:28 AM, July 10, 2010  
Blogger DADvocate said...

This post echos my observations.

a strong stand in support of embracing diversity and affirmative psychotherapy.

I can guarantee you that their diversity doesn't embrace much of conservatism, Christianity or anything else outside the liberal ideology. Their strong stand is in pushing liberalism. When I worked in mental health and at other times spent in the presence of clinical psychologists, their students and other counseling types, denigrating comments about conservatives and conservative beliefs were quite common. No embrace there.

...certain behaviors were simply “never proper” and that it falls to the therapist to point this out to clients.

This is an obviously true statement. It's quite telling that the psychology profession can't recognize that. If it's not true, we have the worst form of anarchy. I remember reading a book about this issue years ago written by a psychologist, maybe Clark Moustakas (?), where he argued in favor of this very point.

Clinical psychology and counseling in general has become an indoctrination device and little more.

12:14 PM, July 10, 2010  
Blogger Chuck Pelto said...

TO: Dr. Helen, et al.
RE: Another Prima Facie Example....

....of the only diversity that is unacceptable is Christianity. And I mean the REAL think.

I'm confident that in the not-too-distant future, these people will be describing Christians, i.e., the real ones, as mentally ill. And so-called Christian denominations will go alone with it.

This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof....


These people fit the description by Paul rather accurately. Especially the part he writes later about....

Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The 'fun' is just beginning.]

6:44 AM, July 11, 2010  
Blogger Chuck Pelto said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

6:51 AM, July 11, 2010  
Blogger Chuck Pelto said...

TO: Trust
RE: The Psychology of Hate

Thanks for that url.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Pagans may hate you, but they'll still worship the ground you walk on.]

6:52 AM, July 11, 2010  
Blogger Chuck Pelto said...

TO: Dr.D
RE: Heh

It will be the Second Coming before that happens, of that I am certain. -- Dr.D

Patience, compadre. Patience.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[It is easier to find men who will volunteer to die, than to find those who are willing to endure pain with patience. -- Julius Caesar]

6:56 AM, July 11, 2010  
Blogger David Baker said...

Aside from the politics...

I believe the judgmental approach defeats the whole purpose of therapy - much less maintaining a safe haven for the client.

No wonder so many active kids have been sedated with Ritalin.

12:57 PM, July 11, 2010  
Blogger Jon said...

I wish to share my experience regarding a particular damage from corporal punishment and some supportive evidence. May I email you privately. The debate isnt' something I wish to take on as a commentor. John

2:20 PM, July 11, 2010  
Blogger Niko said...

I'm surprised the psch field doesn't have a plethora of data comparing the massive psychological and physical damage homosexuality has on people, drug use, stds, suicide, promiscuity, violence, pedophilia etc.

I guess these issues are just presented as expressions of intolerance and foisted on external factors rather than intragenic causes.

7:58 PM, July 11, 2010  
Blogger Master Doh-San said...

Hmmm... Let's take another look at this:

"Several months into the practicum year, Leo’s supervisor, Dr. J., observed that Leo’s personal views seemed to be interfering with his approaching client concerns in an open and supportive fashion. This was particularly evident in the critical stance he assumed when discussing murder. In reviewing videos of counseling sessions, Dr. J. noted that Leo tended to be less supportive of two of his clients: an 18-year old male college student who wondered if he might be a murderer, and a young adult (female) who was deciding whether to confess to murder. Leo’s peers noticed his judgmental stance as well and they challenged him during group supervision. Leo responded that certain behaviors were simply “never proper” and that it falls to the therapist to point this out to clients."

~~~~~
"We would argue that in this vignette, Leo’s attempt to “benefit” his clients by guiding them away from “improper” behavior (in this case, murder) undermines clients’ autonomy and is likely to cause harm to clients who are seeking balanced and non-judgmental assistance. The problem lies not in Leo’s own conservative values, but in his rigidity and lack of respect for and validation of other perspectives."

~~~~~~
How's that whole "non-judgmental" thing working now????

11:29 PM, July 11, 2010  
Blogger Chuck Pelto said...

TO: Master Doh-San, et al.
RE: I'm Curious

How's that whole "non-judgmental" thing working now???? -- Master Doh-San

What are you getting at, here?

RE: Non-Judgemental

I have to wonder what sort of 'non-judgmental' treatment they'd give someone who was visiting them under court order for drunk driving.

Would they tell them that they're 'okay' driving drunk?

What would they tell the judge for being so 'judgmental' towards their 'client'?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.]

8:59 AM, July 12, 2010  
Blogger Chuck Pelto said...

P.S. An additional parthian shot....

Tolerance is the virtue of those who have no convictions.

9:03 AM, July 12, 2010  
Blogger TMink said...

Well, all these criticisms of my profession have prompted me to a rising defense of Psychology: Not all psychologists are PC idiots.

There.

I feel better.

Trey

11:05 AM, July 12, 2010  
Blogger dweeb said...

But they are practicing a science conceived by such people to serve their ends. The very concept is hostile to liberty and designed to buttress authoritarianism.

A scientist studies the material world so as to exploit and manipulate it.

A social scientist studies people so as to exploit and manipulate them.

1:18 PM, July 12, 2010  
Blogger Topher said...

A final note on this:

"I frequently hear from men how they are treated by therapists in couple's counseling. I can always tell they have a "feminist" therapist or the male equivalent when they tell me that the therapist sides with the wife in most situations and tells the men to "watch their behavior" so as not to offend or bother their wife. This is chilling."

This is why it is so refreshing to hear Dr Laura, in her rebirth after leaving orthodox Judaism, seriously address female prerogative in American marriages. She's led the charge for wives to get busy with their husbands (paraphrase: "why wouldn't you? It feels good and brings you closer. Is spite really worth depriving yourself of that?") and to -gasp- appreciate the fact that their husbands bust their butts to provide the family lifestyle.

She once shut up a caller with "some of you want to be so mad at your husbands. Being married is not a right to be angry!" And she's serious about serious gender differences, telling a concerned mother that her very active six-year old boy was perfectly normal. "They're not girls!"

She's pragmatic with advice but not misandrist. Of course the interest groups go absolutely apoplectic, saying she wants women under man's thumb, back in the kitchen, etc etc. We know what kind of empty charge that is among the professional grievance set. We live in strange times when the idea you should consider the needs of your spouse is radical.

Dr Laura may not use her physiology PhD in her work, but she's no quack...she had a secular marital therapy practice before she got into media. For her longtime critics, she's backed off a lot on the anti-gay and religious aspects of the program. It's now more like a no-nonsense drive-through therapy show, and quite good at that. The key: she wants people to have happy relationships. What a radical concept for the politicized world of therapy!

Whoa, didn't intend for the Dr Laura infomercial there but we gotta get serious about kindred spirits, and she's one of them.

2:27 PM, July 12, 2010  
Blogger wild chicken said...

What's really aggravating is when some older, more conservative male therapist still takes the woman's side because it seems somehow gallant - and you know it's because they really do think men are superior and women need that extra boost.

The same mentality is behind the TV ads that show men as stupid all the time.

4:57 PM, July 12, 2010  
Blogger JB said...

First: indoctrinating students to the institution's point of view is nothing new. Moreso in the softer sciences such as psychology, where bias is inevitable. And, in my personal experience, the good profs strive to acknowledge their own biases, as well as teach their students techniques and methodologies to control for bias whenever possible. Any bias. "Conservative", OR "liberal". Or any other.

Now having said that: Dr. Helen this is one time that I must vehemently disagree with you. There are TONS of examples of institutional indoctrination to be used -- but the example you offered doesn't cut it.

Homosexuality was removed from the DSM more than three decades ago. It is absolutely wrong for a therapist to treat a patient as though their sexual orientation is a disorder; including passing judgment on them for it. That is definitely an area where a good therapist ought to remain neutral. So while this student's institution may indeed be guilty of indoctrination -- they were not out of line in this particular correction of this particular student.

And as for the IDIOT commenter who compared homosexuality to murder... you barely deserve a response, so I'll just stop at calling you an idiot.

7:24 PM, July 12, 2010  
Blogger JB said...

First: indoctrinating students to the institution's point of view is nothing new. Moreso in the softer sciences such as psychology, where bias is inevitable. And, in my personal experience, the good profs strive to acknowledge their own biases, as well as teach their students techniques and methodologies to control for bias whenever possible. Any bias. "Conservative", OR "liberal". Or any other.

Now having said that: Dr. Helen this is one time that I must vehemently disagree with you. There are TONS of examples of institutional indoctrination to be used -- but the example you offered doesn't cut it.

Homosexuality was removed from the DSM more than three decades ago. It is absolutely wrong for a therapist to treat a patient as though their sexual orientation is a disorder; including passing judgment on them for it. That is definitely an area where a good therapist ought to remain neutral. So while this student's institution may indeed be guilty of indoctrination -- they were not out of line in this particular correction of this particular student.

And as for the IDIOT commenter who compared homosexuality to murder... you barely deserve a response, so I'll just stop at calling you an idiot.

7:24 PM, July 12, 2010  
Blogger Master Doh-San said...

"It is absolutely wrong for a therapist to treat a patient as though their sexual orientation is a disorder"

Really? So why is it no one ever went to a therapist and said "Doc, I think I might be a heterosexual. Can you help me?"?

10:01 PM, July 12, 2010  
Blogger JB said...

@ Master Doh-San (and really, I'm not even sure why I am engaging with such idiocy):

So let me get this straight: first, in your world, homosexuality is the same as murder; and second, in your world, you have been privy to every conversation every patient has ever had with a therapist, therefore, you know exactly what has and has not ever been said.

You -- and other idiots like you -- wear me out.

10:09 PM, July 12, 2010  
Blogger JB said...

And although it's something of a rhetorical stretch in this particular argument, the mention of gender-feminist leanings during marriage counseling is in fact a far better example of institutional indoctrination than calling a student out for their blatant homophobia.

Let's begin with the fact that an overwhelming majority of first-year master's level psych curricula utilize The Duluth Model as a basic assumption. I suppose it would be easy to find an example of a Clinical Psych student getting reprimanded in their Practicum for not jumping to immediate conclusion that all men are abusive. Well, assuming that said student made it to that point in their degree program.

10:18 PM, July 12, 2010  
Blogger Chuck Pelto said...

TO: TMink
RE: Yeah....

Not all psychologists are PC idiots. -- TMink

But, I'll wager that those that aren't ARE being 'marginalized'.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Psychoceramics: The Study of Crack Pots]

6:56 AM, July 13, 2010  
Blogger Helen said...

JB,

What I disagree with is the author's rationalization for not giving this student credit. They say that psychologists are supposed to support diversity and be "affirming." No, what they really mean is that the student must support those groups that the APA and they think are worth affirming. There is no way they would not give credit to a female therapist who treated a male client in a judgmental way--I've seen this prejudice too often, even from instructors in CE courses. In addition, these authors bring up client autonomy. Clients should also have the right to question whether they want to be gay or not. After all, even Ann Heche decided to marry a man (gasp!). According to these authors (from what I can gather) and the APA guidelines, a therapist is simply to affirm that the patient is gay, not give them a chance to decide differently. How is this client autonomy?

6:58 AM, July 13, 2010  
Blogger Chuck Pelto said...

TO: All
RE: JB & the DSM 'Stone Tablet'....

....with Feet of Clay.

Homosexuality was removed from the DSM more than three decades ago. It is absolutely wrong for a therapist to treat a patient as though their sexual orientation is a disorder...." -- JB

Anyone care to place a bet on how JB will react to the DSM dropping pedophilia? Like it did homosexuality?

I seem to recall reports that the various psychological journals are beginning to publish articles that child molesting is 'good'. Just like they did before the DSM dropped homosexuality.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[ It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.]

7:05 AM, July 13, 2010  
Blogger TMink said...

Whoa, I hope you are wrong Chuck.

I fear you are not.

Trey

9:13 AM, July 13, 2010  
Blogger Chuck Pelto said...

TO: TMink
RE: Wrong?

I hope you are wrong.

I fear not.
-- TMink

About what? Marginalization? Or JB?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. Probably BOTH.

9:24 AM, July 13, 2010  
Blogger TMink said...

Well, I should have been more specific, my bad. I hope you are wrong about the DSM folks saying that pedophilia is fine and dandy.

They gave a lifetime achievement award to a past president who lost her license for sleeping with a patient.

So giving child abuse a stamp of approval is not too much a stretch for the APA.

Trey

1:01 PM, July 13, 2010  
Blogger JB said...

Helen said "There is no way they would not give credit to a female therapist who treated a male client in a judgmental way--I've seen this prejudice too often, even from instructors in CE courses."

I agree. And I have seen far too much of this prejudice myself.

So why not use an example of that (far more prevalent) prejudice instead of the sexual orientation bias?

By the way, Martin Seligman (one of my favorite psychologists) concludes in his book "What You Can Change And What You Cannot" that sexual orientation is not a matter of choice. What *is* a matter of choice is how one expresses that orientation. I would suppose that a student-clinician who was affirming -- for example -- a patient's choice to attempt success in a heterosexual relationship in spite of feelings to the contrary (a scenario very familiar to many, maybe even most, homosexuals) would be supported in the name of patient autonomy... even if such support directly violated the political leanings of the teaching institution.

7:13 PM, July 14, 2010  
Blogger Chuck Pelto said...

TO: JB
RE: [Somewhat-OT] Choice?

By the way, Martin Seligman (one of my favorite psychologists) concludes in his book "What You Can Change And What You Cannot" that sexual orientation is not a matter of choice. -- JB

As I mentioned over on a thread down the hall from here, it would be an interesting experiment to—as Demonspawn put it—open up a head and tweak a neuron here and add some dopamine there and see if someone's sexual orientation could be changed.

Not that he was thinking of that sort of think, but it could provide evidence about (1) free will and (2) sexual orientation.

By the way, there's no proof of your ascertation regarding sexuality NOT being a 'choice'. Just because someone says so is not 'proof'. If it were, then you and Demonspawn and Tether and all the others would have to accept that God exists merely on MY say so.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[God builds His temple in the hearts of men, upon the ruins of theology and religion.]

8:55 AM, July 15, 2010  

Post a Comment

<< Home