Wednesday, December 21, 2005

Can Psychology Become more Diverse?

The number of PHD's in psychology is declining :

For the fourth year in a row, the number of students earning PhDs in psychology has decreased, according to the federal "Doctorate Recipients from United States Universities" report, which offers data on most 2002 PhD recipients. In fact, since 1998 the number of psychology PhDs awarded has dropped about 13 percent, from 3,676 to 3,199, the survey found.

The trend towards more females in the field continues:

About 67 percent of 2002 psychology PhDs were women, continuing the trend of a majority of women in the field over the past 20 to 25 years. For 2002 doctorate recipients in all fields, 45 percent were women.

Although the APA may believe otherwise, I believe the trend towards fewer PHDs in psychology and fewer men will continue unless action is taken to reverse some of the problem areas in the field. I have to give the APA credit though--they appear to be trying to do just that. They recently requested APA members to email their concerns about the future of psychology to the Policy and Planning Board in Washington DC. So I did my part to help the APA understand how lack of diversity is driving potential members and students away. Here is my email:

My main concern at this time is similar to others who have voiced feeling disturbed with the lack of political diversity of the APA. Although I am a member of APA and have been a Full member since 1994, I do not feel welcome within the organization. I am sure I speak for other Libertarian and Republican colleagues when I say that I feel deep concern when I hear that "disparaging remarks were made about red state officials and the left-leaning documentary, Outfoxed, was shown during the APA convention (page 61, November 2005 Monitor). At least you could have shown another documentary looking at the other side of the coin, such as Michael Moore Hates America.

This discrimination against right leaning thinkers is not only reflective in the APA, but is ingrained in many of the graduate programs in psychology throughout the country. I witnessed a male student who made a politically incorrect remark about African Americans in my graduate program in the 1990's and he was put out of the program. If you want to "make sure that all perspectives are respected and not silenced" then the APA has to be willing to hear views that they do not agree with--I certainly have had to be tolerant of the potically correct views of the majority of APA members for years. I talk with colleagues across the country who do not belong to APA because they do not agree with the left wing politics. One psychologist told me that he quit APA 15 years ago as he feared if he spoke his real views, he would get "thrown out anyway." Although this view may be extreme, it is one that should be taken with concern.

I am writing because I would like to stay a part of the APA--but when I see articles advocating diversity--but only if one is politically correct--I feel discouraged about the future of psychology. Left leaning politics may fly within APA and the academic world but in the real world--there is a mixture of people who share all kinds of world views. How does it help our profession, its students, and our clients when we tout diversity but only if it is the left leaning kind?

In order to remedy this situation, I would recommend more right leaning articles as well as left, more research looking into the traits of liberals like the one on Political Conservatism as Socially Motivated Cognition (of course, it should be written by researchers who are not primarily liberals), more welcoming views of masculinity (no, it is not a pathology to be male--e.g. not all sons are engaged in sex scandals--believe it or not, most boys are pretty decent people), less women as victim articles and books, and more inclusion of those with right leaning political views on the board of APA.

Thanks for listening.

Helen Smith, PHD
APA Member

And here is the APA's reply:

December 21, 2005

Dear Dr. Smith:

I am writing as the chair of the Policy and Planning Board (P&P) to thank you for your letter of November 11, 2005. P&P has a strong interest in APA's future and believes that it will be to APA's benefit to maintain an environment that will encourage an open exchange among psychologists with different views. P&P heard other APA members voice similar positions to yours at the Town Hall Meeting held at the 2005 APA Convention in Washington, DC.

I am copying Andy Benjamin, who will chair P&P in 2006 and asking him to raise this issue for discussion when the P&P meets in March 2006. This will fit nicely into the board’s discussions tracking the activities associated with recommendations included in the 2004 P&P 5-year report (American Psychologist, July/Aug 2005 pp. 512-522). I believe that this is an important APA membership retention issue as well as an issue that psychology may wish to use to demonstrate the positive contributions that it can make to American society.

I appreciate the time you took to raise this issue and promise that Andy Benjamin will bring this to the attention of P&P at its March 2006 meeting.


Sandra E. Tars, PhD

Chair, Policy and Planning Board

Okay, this response could just be a way to placate members but hopefully, the need to retain old members and reach out to new ones will keep them on their toes, and may be the start of change within the organization and psychology. I sure hope so.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Good luck, and I mean that. As leftist liberals tend to view change to the right with all the aplomb of a cornered sewer rat (e.g. Dem party), it remains to be seen where the "blame" will be assigned and whether constructive change will occur. I suspect that:

1. The entrenched power structure within the APA is happily left-leaning. They ARE the problem, and it won't be self-correcting.

B. Effects on the membership over the years have tilted that to the left also. You might be in a shrinking minority.

iii. The problem will ultimately have to be attacked through organizational change at the top.

After all, if those guys thought there was anything seriously wrong with their views or the consequences of their past actions, they would be telling the membership about the corrective measures being enacted (or at least being considered or to be proposed) rather than sending out placating emails and promising to "talk about it."

Discuss, delay, defuse, misdirect, obfuscate: Works in the UN, expect to see similar tactics in action in March.

3:36 PM, December 21, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

OK. I have been waiting for an excuse to pass something along. After the previous comment, maybe this is a good time even though it violates the common rule of applicability to the topic. I hope that all can be forgiven in the spirit of the season. The poem was emailed to me by a friend and former active duty Army guy as "author unknown."


The embers glowed softly, and in their dim light,
I gazed round the room and I cherished the sight.

My wife was asleep, her head on my chest,
My daughter beside me, angelic in rest.

Outside the snow fell, a blanket of white,
Transforming the yard to a winter delight.

The sparkling lights in the tree, I believe,
Completed the magic that was Christmas Eve.

My eyelids were heavy, my breathing was deep,
Secure and surrounded by love, I would sleep.

In perfect contentment, or so it would seem,
So I slumbered, perhaps I started to dream.

The sound wasn't loud, and it wasn't too near,
But I opened my eyes when it tickled my ear.

Perhaps just a cough, I didn't quite know,
Then the sure sound of footsteps outside in the snow.

My soul gave a tremble, I struggled to hear,
And I crept to the door just to see who was near.

Standing out in the cold and the dark of the night,
A lone figure stood, his face weary and tight.

A soldier, I puzzled, some twenty years old,
Perhaps a Marine, huddled here in the cold.

Alone in the dark, he looked up and smiled,
Standing watch over me, my wife, and my child.

"What are you doing?" I asked without fear,
"Come in this moment, it's freezing out here!

Put down your pack, brush the snow from your sleeve,
You should be at home on a cold Christmas Eve!"

For barely a moment I saw his eyes shift,
Away from the cold and the snow blown in drifts.

To the window that danced with a warm fire's light
Then he sighed and he said "Its really all right, I'm out here by choice,
I'm here every night."

"It's my duty to stand at the front of the line,
That separates you from the darkest of times.

No one had to ask or beg or implore me,
I'm proud to stand here like my fathers before me.

My Gramps died at 'Pearl on a day in December,"
Then he sighed, "That's a Christmas 'Gram always remembers."

My dad stood his watch in the jungles of 'Nam',
And now it is my turn and so, here I am.

I've not seen my own son in more than a while,
But my wife sends me pictures, he's sure got her smile.

Then he bent and he carefully pulled from his bag,
The red, white, and blue... an American flag.

"I can live through the cold and the being alone,
Away from my family, my house and my home.

I can stand at my post through the rain and the sleet,
I can sleep in a foxhole with little to eat.

I can carry the weight of killing another,
Or lay down my life with my sister and brother.

Who stand at the front, against any and all,
To ensure for all time that this flag will not fall."

"So go back inside," he said, "harbor no fright,
Your family is waiting and I'll be all right."

"But isn't there something I can do, at the least,
"Give you money," I asked, "or prepare you a feast?

It seems all too little for all that you've done,
For being away from your wife and your son."

Then his eye welled a tear that held no regret,
"Just tell us you love us, and never forget.

To fight for our rights back at home while we're gone,
To stand your own watch, no matter how long.

For when we come home, either standing or dead,
To know you remember, we fought and we bled.

Is payment enough, and with that we will trust,
That we mattered to you, as you mattered to us."

3:47 PM, December 21, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Aulde Pharte - thanks a lot for posting this poem. I will be sure to pass it along to my friends. Merry Chriatmas to you and yours.
Semper Fi

5:23 PM, December 21, 2005  
Blogger Assistant Village Idiot said...

Looks like a form letter to me, Dr. Or something darn close to it.

You have done exactly the right thing in being reasonable and direct. I worry it will be futile. In conventions, a sort of mob psychology starts to take over, and the more radical, knowing they have some supporters nearby, start making impassioned speeches with lots of accusation and little content. The people in authority, reading the membership numbers, form committees and study groups.

Next time, the membership numbers are down a little, but the activists are a greater percentage, and are now emboldened, not having been bopped on the head last year.

7:08 PM, December 21, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

First, thanks to Aulde Pharte for posting that poem. It's funny how it is true...and yet how people who are "cool" and "with it" will laugh or disparage it. I think part of all this is the lack of teaching of history, and the politicization of what is taught.

Funny how the Left doesn't want to be called "unpatriotic," and yet acts scornfully toward patriotic ideals. Now *there* is a pathology for you, Dr. Helen!

AVI makes a good point, Dr. Helen. The leadership of the APA is self-selected for conformity of viewpoint (who gets elected to those posts?). And they certainly think that the Right is not simply mistaken, but evil and wrong.

I fear your name is now on their list of undesireable people, Dr. Helen.

Of course, that is a badge of honor, when you think about it.

"Eric Blair"

9:59 PM, December 21, 2005  
Blogger Helen said...

Auld Pharte,

Thanks for posting the poem!

Mr. Blair,

I will wear my name as one of the undesireables as a badge of honor--after all, what can they do, take away my job? Oops, too late--with the pay we get from managed care, that was done years ago. But if there are enough of us who are not liberals at least saying something, they might think twice about some of their biases.

10:29 PM, December 21, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dr. Helen,

I'm not a psychologist, but I've read about a trend towards "culturally appropriate" psychotherapy, which I guess means recognizing and empathizing with group-victim identity. Do you think this could be causing men not to apply to PhD program, and to the APA becoming even more left-leaning?

1:41 AM, December 22, 2005  
Blogger Gina said...

There is a noted Pschologist , who claims that ADD is acfalse illness drumbed up just to make money .

6:48 AM, December 22, 2005  
Blogger Helen said...


Thanks for sharing your experience. Please do not apologize for feeling the way you do about psychologists--I do not take offense easily and welcome honest thoughts on this blog as long as we all share our thoughts with each other with respect.

That said, there are some psychologists out there who are do not understand men's issues--I mean really understand them. I am sorry you ran into those who bought into the men as predator, women as victim hype.

Psychologists are human and do some really stupid things. That does not excuse their behavior, however. The treatment of men in psychology does need to change--it is no wonder so few men seek help. I have always specialized in male clients and have always had a good rapport with them. My first case after my master's degree was "John" a hermaphrodite(he had genitalia of both a male and female but lived his life as a male) who was being beaten by the woman he married. I tried very hard to be sensitive to what he told me about the abuse he incurred. I got him the help he needed and also was able to bring his wife in and confront her with the abuse. I think that rather than cultural sensitivity (whatever the hell that means) we need therapists who have sensitivity to a range of human emotions and behavior. I had a terrific supervisor in New York who taught me well. He told me that I would have to learn to understand all human behavior as it was and not as I thought it should be. Therapy, he taught me was like acting, whatever person came through my door, I had to take in his or her feelings, thoughts and emotional makeup to understand them. I think if we could train therapists to do that--to really understand the variation of human behavior and emotion--rather than just lump people into some type of cultural stereotype, it would help.

What we need is a change in the way that therapists are trained. They need to understand the seriousness of male abuse. The change needs to start with how graduate students are trained. How to achieve that change is the big question. It is one that desperately needs to be addressed.

anonymous 1:41

The APA is too into diversity and multicultural issues. This leads to PC behavior in both the university and with practitioners. Psychology is becoming more anti-male and trying to see men through the eyes of women. Of course, it is a turn off to men. No self-respecting man could put up with such crap. I hope that the APA will come to see the error of its ways as more men stay out of the field but I fear psychology is on the way to becoming a "pink-collar ghetto" and will probably isolate most men just like teaching and nursing.

8:25 AM, December 22, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dear Brummbar:

You wrote: "Nobody worries about the political leanings of neurologists or bio-chemists. "

With great respect, I submit that that is not the case. Scientists are people, and we have our share of extreme nutjobs---even as is seen in this forum.

Here is an example. During the 1980s, there was an outbreak of inhalation anthrax in the Soviet Union. The Soviets insisted it was due to some bad rugs, people eating infected meat, etc. The US accused them of testing germ warefare agents, in violation of international treaty.

The Left wing chorus from the scientific community---led by the very wise Nobelist Matthew Meselson (who helped discover how DNA replicates) was head of several committees who all defended the Soviets. Meselson wrote several editorial excoriating the US for spreading the rumor that the Soviets were still working on germ warfare, how xenophobic we were, how we needed to trust the Soviets, and so on.

Fifteen years later, after the fall of the Soviet Union, it was revealed that anthrax outbreak was indeed part of a weapons program test gone wrong.

Meselson has never apologized. None of the pro-Soviet chorus of that period ever has. Not once, saying "I was wrong." Just an echoing silence....and if pressed, the only response is that we are probably doing it too.

Sorry for the long post. My point is that bench scientists in biology, chemistry, physics, etc. are NOT any more politically astute than Howard Dean, necessarily.

As a bench scientist myself, I wish we were better. But we aren't.

Thanks for listening.

"Eric Blair"

10:57 AM, December 22, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think the point is that psychology is psuedo-science. Not saying it can't be helpful. Just saying it ain't science. More like an art. The sooner people in the field admit this, the better.

12:16 PM, December 22, 2005  
Blogger Helen said...

anonymous 12:16

Psychology is part art and part science. The problem is that within the art part--there is a lot of room for interpretation --some good, some bad. This means that the treatment one gets is as good or bad as the therapist dispensing it.

1:48 PM, December 22, 2005  
Blogger Greg Kuperberg said...

Mathew Meselson has no need to apologize for a false account of his past. He never "excoriated" the United States for claiming that the Soviets had an anthrax accident in Sverdlovsk in 1979. All he said was that he was skeptical and that it needed to be investigated further.

So who proved to the public in 1994 that the anthrax accident in Sverdlovsk was real? Mathew Meselson. Meselson led an investigative team that went there in 1993 to settle the matter. So the part about an "echoing silence" and "if pressed" is completely wrong.

Then there is the assertion that "I wish we were better". In the context of plain distortions, that's hard to believe. Actually the "Eric Blair" signature is also unconfirmed. Coincidentally, or maybe not coincidentally, it is the name of the author whose pen name was George Orwell.

The one bright spot in this inaccurate story about Mathew Meselson is that it can actually be checked.

2:12 PM, December 22, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


dude, i support you. but i think we all knew about the "eric blair" reference. it's not coincedence.

4:43 PM, December 22, 2005  
Blogger Greg Kuperberg said...

I'm not going to suppose that "Eric Blair" is or isn't a pseudonym. It's in quotes, so maybe it isn't real, but I have no hard evidence one way or the other. The Google phone book lists some real Eric Blairs.

The real point is that there isn't much accountability in the comments section of this blog.

4:55 PM, December 22, 2005  
Blogger a psychiatrist who learned from veterans said...

I'd like to thank you for earlier referencing self help books at In the 'good old days,' mental heatlh was about 2% of insurances costs; so psychologists could bill without preauthorization and see a patient weekly. Psychiatric Institutes of America found they could drain from, say a $50,000 lifetime benefit limit, maybe some $21,000 with a few week hospitalization. The insurance dollar went to 12% mental illness. Not all of this was club med kind of treatment. Lilly's new antidepressant, Prozac, was orders of magnitiude safer in overdose, more effective where 'self esteem' was a factor and more expensive, naturally, than what were then generics. Ciba-Geigy might have sniffed at getting Tegretol an indication as a bipolar drug as well as for epilepsy; but, at that point, with Lilly's $1+ billion per year sales of Prozac, psychiatry was noticed back on the Pharma. Panic was correctly diagnosed and treated. Etc. But, as you might expect, with a 12% factor in the budget, controls were put in place. Among these has been a real rarity of having any insurance plan offering the potential for weekly visits. I know of one achingly sad case where someone chose a plan based on the possibility of that, of course subject to 'medical necessity,' which, past some 12 visits, was really impossible to meet. With the additional stressor of Social Security canceling disability for her having worked 6 weeks as a nurse before a pulmonary embolus, recurrent depression, thus having no money to keep her valued possessions even in storage, that person is no longer with us. The psychologist did offer to defer the bill or see her for free. Sometimes it doesn't pay to be too middle class in ones expectations of institutions. I think that, unfortunately, exactly this does support your point. Maybe you could a little more expect the APA to give up its exceitement over 'insert right race, gender word here' than Robespierre to have become interested in the correct pricing of stocks on a Dutch exchange. At least the penalties for not being in the identitarian 'in crowd' are more modern. Also, I think that feedback over the difficulties of participating in insurance payments and the feeling that treatment is appropriately also or more part of a biological scheme are other factors to include in the factor analysis explaining fewer new PhD psychologists.

7:40 PM, December 22, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, why not start up a competing organization and begin taking some of the 'market' away from them?

That's what I'd do, if I were a right-leaning libertarianish type in this situation (and sufficiently motivated).

To me, the simple fact that this situation has already 'progressed' to such a state is itself inherently indicative that the standing organizations lack the resources necessary to address it competently -- and that therefore the time is ripe for a better, faster, smarter, more motivated, more competent, etc. competitor to appear and start eating their lunch.

7:52 PM, December 22, 2005  
Blogger Assistant Village Idiot said...

Meselson stated that the Soviet tainted-meat explanation hung together, and also later agreed that even an inhalation anthrax experiment might be a defensive biologic experiment, permitted under the 1972 treaty.

The State Department complained at him that he had not asked tough questions of the Soviets.

He in fact repeatedly wrote that the Soviet explanations were credible, and that the US accusations were unproven. Well, I suppose that's true, as far as it goes. Sometimes a responsible scientist will not make an assertion until he is quite, quite sure of it. This is perhaps the correct attitude when publishing in a journal.

But Dr. Meselson was not asked to become involved so that we could increase our storehouse of journal articles on biowar. He was recruited specifically to lead a team to determine whether the claim of anthrax use was credible. In that instance, the standard of "what is most likely to be true?" applies.

In the law, a different standard of proof is required for different types of cases. "Beyond reasonable doubt" applies for criminal cases. But civil cases are often decided on "the preponderance of the evidence." (In between is the standard of "clear and convincing evidence.")

All of us should take a moment to imagine what standard we would apply if we were asked to make a similar investigation in our own field of expertise, with hundreds or thousands of lives on the line.

Dr. Meselson has a great deal to apologise for.

I believe you were the person asking about accountability, greg. Thank you for this opportunity to research a topic I had known little about.

8:15 PM, December 22, 2005  
Blogger Nick said...

Pyschology is definitely not alone in this. I know this is a huge issue within AMA as well, and the reason why they are losing members while the specialty groups flourish in terms of membership and growing political influence.

I worked for the Marriage and Family Therapists for a couple of years. So many of them are wonderful, thoughtful people--and the activist social-justice types tend to hijack any thoughtful discourse in matters of policy. Conservative members self-select into silence.

8:58 PM, December 22, 2005  
Blogger Greg Kuperberg said...

There is no getting around the fact that Meselson himself proved the claims that he said were unproven. He did not act as a trial lawyer who clings to the defense no matter what facts turn up. He unearthed the facts himself and dispelled all doubt. If he had needed to "apologize" for anything, his completely accountable investigation fit the bill. As I said, there was no "echoing silence" from Meselson.

Besides, why should anyone apologize for expressing doubt about intelligence claims? I would think that after these past two years, everyone would understand that claims about weapons of mass destruction are worth proving. Even if the President of the United States flatly says that there is no doubt, he might be wrong.

9:36 PM, December 22, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks, AVI... I'm glad you looked into the material for yourself. The cultural Left doesn't have much of a memory for its own mistakes, I find...yet they insist that every bad thing America has ever done be taught to schoolchildren.

I am not and never have attacked Meselson’s research. Meselson’s politics have never been in dispute, however. For good or for ill, he was always a Leftist apologist. And since there are so many Leftists in academics, that is hardly a surprise.

There is nothing so offensive to me, bar none, as scientists who use their expertise in one area to give themselves a loudspeaker and a platform about issues unrelated to their area of expertise.

Certainly, everyone has a right to an opinion, even an unfair and biased one. But our voices should be equal. The old quote from Szilard comes to mind: when asked what he thought about democracy, he replied that he understood that the vote of a wise man was equal to that of a fool; what concerned him was that two fools could outvote a wise man. It's the price we pay for the kind of democracy we wish to have.

I have many opinions I feel passionately, but I do not use my expertise in my own area of science as a platform.

In every way, Meselson took the position that the Soviets were "good guys" and the nasty old US was evil.

I don't particularly care if Dr. Kuperberg believes or disbelieves me. It is unsuprising to me that he persists in missing the point---which was that scientists are no more or no less better at perceiving political issues fairly than any other group.

Dr. Kuperberg did make a specific error that is important, however. Meselson only "recanted" his original "bad meat" idea in 1994, AFTER Yeltsin admitted the treaty violations in 1992. Don't take my word for it:

In fact, in several periodicals (and as Dr. Kuperberg tries to assert), Meselson attempted to take credit for the biological warfare explanation that so distressed him a few years earlier.

Too bad Yeltsin himself was first!

Again, the point of the post was NOT to argue with Dr. Kuperberg about Harvard professors with Leftist backgrounds.

As for "Eric Blair," indeed it is a pseudonym, and I am pleased that most people see that here. Several English professors (of British and American Literature) where I taught before did not.

Why do I use a pseudonym? Geez, based on Dr. Kuperberg's general way of behaving himself around here, can you blame me? He is typical of most academics in politics.

The one thing I have learned---and learned from bitter experience over the past twenty five years, is that academics is not about freedom of expression and respect for other points of view. I have seen academic careers destroyed because of deviation from accepted political viewpoints.

My apologies, again, if a pseudonym is found to be offensive here.

Now, I suspect I have chatted off topic too long. Dr. Helen, thank you for your patience. The point of this thread started simply: a poster suggested that folks trained in the bench sciences would be clearer thinkers regarding politics. That is simply not true, with all respect to the original poster.

Thanks again for your patience, Dr. Helen, and for the patience and politeness of most of the other posters. I think I'll shut up for a while, since I have done something which I am on record as disliking: stirring people up unnecessarily.

"Eric Blair"

9:58 PM, December 22, 2005  
Blogger Greg Kuperberg said...

The claim that the deaths in Sverdlovsk were due to contaminated meat came from the Soviet authorities. It cannot be called Meselson's "original bad meat" idea.

Meselson did not "recant" anything in 1994, which was when his article was published in Science magazine. He had an earlier article in 1993, and of course he had professional correspondence as early as his investigative team went to Russia in June 1992. It was not a secret mission.

It's easy to guess what Yeltsin was doing when he admitted to the anthrax accident the week before Meselson's team showed up in 1992. He was trying to cover his own butt. The accident happened on Yeltsin's watch in Sverdlovsk. But he had approved Meselson's mission and he knew what they would find. So he comes out with this incredible statement that he hadn't admitted to the incident sooner because "nobody asked him".

If you think about it, Yeltsin's loose statements aren't really proof of what happened. They are strong evidence of some kind of criminal accident involving anthrax, but it isn't either a detailed or a reliable account. Meselson's team provided the real independent confirmation. It was independent of the unreliable Yeltsin government; and it was independent of the US intelligence community, which ought to keep its methods of investigation secret.

It just shows you the zeal of some people's opinions that they can be more bugged by Matthew Meselson, a tweedy professor, than by Boris Yeltsin, a corrupt and alcoholic ex-Communist leader.

I learned my lesson about anonymity on the Internet a long time ago. Anonymity can be the last refuge of the brave. It is more often the first refuge of cowards.

11:20 PM, December 22, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You are a thoroughly unpleasant person, sir. Please do not address me further. I wish you every success in all you do, and all you write, but I do not wish to converse with you again.

"Eric Blair"

1:05 AM, December 23, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


Just wanted to comment on the "standards of evidence" listed in an earlier comment.

Of course the "standards of evidence" assumes that fundamental due process fulfilling Constitutional requirements has occurred. All that good Constitutional stuff: notice, counsel, right to hear the charges or complaints against you, right to hear the evidence against you, right to confront witnesses, right to call your own witnesses, etc, etc, etc.....

Take the fundamental due process requirement of "notice", which requires that you be informed of the complaint against you, who is making that complaint, what court the complaint was made in, where and when to report to defend yourself, etc. If this very fundamental requirement is not met the proceeding is a farce. (And possibly something much more serious - extrinsic fraud, which is a felony.)

Excuse me for stating the obvious, but I just wanted to put in a reminder that the "standards of evidence" must be applied in a legitimate proceeding. We wouldn't want any kangaroo courts or show trials being used to persecute innocent people now, would we?

5:16 AM, December 23, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dr. Helen,

Please excuse me for not holding my breath. I live in the bible belt. Although not christian, I enjoy living here, so long as no one mentions the evolution creation debate. Even here though, psych remains uber-liberal. Human Behavior, a course all med students have to take, is practically a litany of one liberal philosophical idea after another.

One prof even went so far as to sit us through demonstrations of 'sex therapy techniques'...clearly meant to inflame, annoy,a nd shock our largely conservative student populace while serving little to no didactic purpose.

Sorry, just had to rant.


5:55 AM, December 23, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

sorry, just read the other comments.

Brummbar, don't be so quick to dismiss the politically (and philosophically) biased views of neurobiologists and biochemists, they are at least partly to blame for the situation the mental health professions find themselves.

They have knowingly told half truth after half truth, especially on the role and nautre of the 'chemical imbalance', throwing around the word 'hardwired', and refusing to acknowledge the important distinction between correlation and causation. Not to mention grossly oversimplifying the way the brain works and overlooking some of hte basic rules of neurobiology to make their statements.

Gina, you can start your hunt for info on the falseness of ADD by googling a guy named Frank L Baugman, MD. He's a neurologist (Doctor) who has dissected and discredited several papers claiming to show the 'causes' of ADHD. If you're interested, feel free to email me and I'll forward to you two papers, one an undergrad honors thesis, and the second from a graduate seminar that I did. They'll at least be a good list of references...

6:13 AM, December 23, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


In another thread you mentioned your background and some research you had done to find other males that had been through the same thing. Do you have a website or something where someone could learn more about the phenomena?

4:47 AM, December 24, 2005  
Blogger Rizzo said...

A few things to keep in mind: First, not all psychologists are mental health therapists. In fact, the majority aren't. I went to graduate school for industrial/organizational psychology, which is probably the one area of psychology that is more libertarian/conservative than the others, as well as having a much more equal split between men and women. Some areas of psychology, I would guess, might even have more men than women (perhaps cognitive psychology, although I don't really know for sure).

But, I agree, the APA has become a hopelessly leftwing organization. What makes it particularly annoying is the fact that they take leftist position without evidence to support that position, or despite evidence that refutes it. In other words, they've become increasingly unscientific. It's unfortunate that a profession that is already considered unscientific by many is being overseen by an organization that has become increasingly so.

Of course, I now work in education, so if you want unscientific...

10:04 AM, December 27, 2005  
Blogger Helen said...


Yes, cognitive and industrial psychology appear to be more libertarian/conservative with equal numbers of men. I am in forensic psychology and find that also to be the case as their are a number of law enforcement types and those who deal with the criminal element in a practical way. Maybe your branch of psychology can help pull the APA back a bit on it's left wing dogma.

2:59 PM, December 27, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Greg, Eric's anonymity is irrelevant. Address ideas, not personas, and identities are not needed. When I see someone comment on pseudonyms or anonymity in an online discussion, it almost inevitably turns out to be someone frustrated at the lack of targets for ad hominems.

Dr. Helen,
As I've mentioned before, liberalism is inextricably tied to the industry the APA represents - the mental health industry. Responsibility for one's own thoughts and feelings is the last bastion of personal responsibility, which is a major component of conservative thought, and the industry exists largely as a contradiction to that ideal. Furthermore, the industry is the ultimate manifestation of the liberal elitist desire to meddle in, control, and guide the lives of others.

As has been pointed out in this thread, a large number of psychologists are not involved in the mental health industry, but rather in research and fields like organizational behavior. However, the APA really doesn't represent them. They are not the money and power branch of the field, and, let's face it, professional organizations, from the APA to the Teamsters, are all primarily about money and political power.

A true conservative approach would severely limit the industry to those with confirmed organic pathologies who represent a material threat to public safety, and that's not in line with a past APA president's assertion that the entire population are properly their patients.

The APA has a duty to foster the economic interests of its members, and conservatism doesn't grow the industry - it's like the Cattlemen's Association making room for PETA at the table, or the NRA being more inclusive of HCI's views.

3:41 PM, December 27, 2005  
Blogger Bob's Blog said...

Thanks for writing about the political bias of yur profession. I am a social worker with conservative views. My profession is utterly dominated by leftists, and is even more lopsided in its female to male ratio than is your profession. I have enjoyed a career in child protection, I conduct "best interest of the child" investigations, and my wife and I do foster care (she is a school psychologist). My two favorite blogs? Yours and Instapundit!

12:33 AM, February 06, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


5:17 AM, March 14, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

視訊做愛視訊美女無碼A片情色影劇kyo成人動漫tt1069同志交友網ut同志交友網微風成人論壇6k聊天室日本 avdvd 介紹免費觀賞UT視訊美女交友..........................

10:09 PM, May 19, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

視訊ukiss173liveshow 視訊美女0401 影音視訊美女聊天室0401 影音視訊美女聊天室視訊美女一對一視訊美女一對一0401 視訊美女0401 視訊美女168 視訊美女168 視訊美女五分鐘護半身視訊美女視訊美女34c五分鐘護半身視訊美女99 視訊美女主播 500 點99 視訊美女主播 500 點888 視訊美女聊天室888 視訊美女聊天室視訊美女 live0204視訊美女 live0204173liveshow 視訊美女173liveshow 視訊美女0401 影音視訊美女聊天室視訊ggo

10:08 PM, June 07, 2009  

Post a Comment

<< Home