Saturday, July 10, 2010

Stuart Schneiderman:
Upper middle class New Yorkers embrace diversity, until it comes to their own children. They happily affirm their commitment to a culture of self-esteem, until it enters their children's classrooms.

Thus, they overcome the stress of helicopter mothering through the private school system.

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: ,

Wednesday, July 07, 2010

"...female, non-violent prisoners will do about 25-percent of their sentence.."

Lindsay Lohan was sentenced to 90 days in jail and 90 days in rehab:

According to Steve Whitmore, spokesperson for the Los Angeles County Sheriff's department, Lohan will serve her time at the Century Regional Detention Center in Lynwood, California and will be segregated from the general jail population.

Lohan may only end up serving a few weeks of her 90 day jail sentence -- Whitmore noted that "female, non-violent prisoners will do about 25-percent of their sentence" because L.A. jails suffer from "an overcrowding situation."

According to this article, "non-violent" male prisoners serve more time:

The Los Angeles Times reports that most women only serve 20 percent of their jail sentence. Up until last week, male inmates were serving at least 80 percent of their jail time, but recently the sheriff's department began freeing men who were sentenced for non-violent offenses after they served only 50 percent of their time.

I don't think letting people off early is such a good idea but shouldn't the time served be uniform across the board regardless of sex? Isn't this blatant discrimination?


Tuesday, July 06, 2010

Do morning people rule the world?

This research says they do:

New research by Christoph Randler, a biology professor at the University of Education at Heidelberg, however, concludes that morning people are more likely to succeed in their careers because they are more proactive than evening people.

He surveyed 367 university students, asking them when they were most energetic and willing to change a situation. It was the morning people who were more likely to agree with statements such as “I feel in charge of making things happen” and “I spend time identifying long-range goals for myself.”

Discussing his research in the Harvard Business Review, Randler says: “When it comes to business success, morning people hold the important cards. My earlier research showed that they tend to get better grades in school, which gets them into better colleges, which then leads to better job opportunities. Morning people also anticipate problems and try to minimise them. They're proactive.”

I'm a morning person and I would like to say that morning people get ahead, but I've seen too many computer and tech types who work well into the night who are successful to believe this is true. I think being able to take advantage of the times you do feel the best to do what you need to get done seems to work for most people.

Are you a morning or evening person? Which do you think "get ahead?"

Monday, July 05, 2010

Is free will becoming extinct?

Have you noticed an uptick in studies that seem to say you have no or little free will? It seems that as more and more liberals desire to regulate behavior, the academic world is focusing more intently on studies that show free will to be an illusion. For example, in Time, there is a recent article entitled "Think You're Operating on Free Will? Think Again" (via Instapundit):

There may be few things more fundamental to human identity than the belief that people are rational individuals whose behavior is determined by conscious choices. But recently psychologists have compiled an impressive body of research that shows how deeply our decisions and behavior are influenced by unconscious thought, and how greatly those thoughts are swayed by stimuli beyond our immediate comprehension.

Glenn and I interviewed Cass Sunstein, the author of Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness two years ago. Sunstein is now Obama administration's regulatory czar. I remember as I listened to him talk about "libertarian paternalism" (isn't that an oxymoron?) that I felt sick to my stomach. In Sunstein's opinion, it seems that justifying the notion that people do not have free will gives license to bureaucrats and politicians to "nudge" people in the direction that they desire them to go. A nudge is often not noticed until it becomes a shove and by then, it is often too late.

Beware of studies that show free will to be more and more of an illusion, for as Glenn says, "This kind of thing is often pitched as a reason for regulation, since your free will is portrayed as illusory."

Perhaps the free will of academics who do so many of these studies is really the illusion. Maybe it is they who unconsciously want to give more ammunition to the current administration to proceed with policies that usurp free will and take more and more of our freedoms away. Free will and personal responsibility are the epitome of freedom. Let us not allow them to become extinct.

Sunday, July 04, 2010

Roger Simon's wish for today's Fourth of July celebration: "One thing we might end for the Fourth of July is identity politics. I’ll send up a Roman candle for that."

So will I....Happy 4th!

"Feminists need to demonize these attractive Republican women because they pose an existential threat to feminism."

Stuart Schneiderman: The Hotness Gap:

If a man had to choose between a fantasy date with Nikki Haley or one with Elena Kagan, which would he choose? If he had to choose between being married to Sarah Palin or being married to Hillary Clinton, who would he prefer?

There is worse yet. As I believe, feminism is a cult. It is directly in the business of recruiting new adherents. From the perspective of feminist recruitment efforts, ask yourself this: if a girl is going to choose an adult female role model, who is she more likely to choose, Sonia Sotomayor or Michelle Bachmann?

Feminists need to demonize these attractive Republican women because they pose an existential threat to feminism.