Showing posts with label American Psychological Association. Show all posts
Showing posts with label American Psychological Association. Show all posts

Friday, January 11, 2019

The APA has Come Up with a New Definition of “Masculinity”

Democrats are having a $5Billion Govt Shutdown Tantrum to Stop a Border Wall to Keep Out Gang Members, Murderers, Drug Dealers, etc. 

But we Still have money to fund this Destructive Crap.

Hot Air
Jazz Shaw Posted at 2:41 pm on January 9, 2019

What does the word “masculinity” mean to you? If you’re a liberal you’ve probably already mentally inserted the word “toxic” in front of it because, well… it’s 2019. If not, then you’re likely picturing the virtues and work ethic many fathers attempt to pass on to their sons. But now, at least according to the increasingly SJW obsessed American Psychological Association, there’s another answer to that question. Masculinity is a harmful psychological condition which males in a civilized society need to be weaned off of. 

 
I first caught wind of this from a great Twitter thread by John P Wright. If you haven’t seen it yet it’s worth the click.
NBC News picked up the story this week and, to nobody’s surprise, seemed to give it a glowing review. Their summary here does a good job of encapsulating the insanity which now passes for “science” in the APA. (Emphasis added)
For the first time in its 127-year history, the American Psychological Association has issued guidelines to help psychologists specifically address the issues of men and boys — and the 36-page document features a warning.
Traditional masculinity ideology has been shown to limit males’ psychological development, constrain their behavior, result in gender role strain and gender role conflict and negatively influence mental health and physical health,” the report warns.
The new “Guidelines for the Psychological Practice with Boys and Men” defines “masculinity ideology” as “a particular constellation of standards that have held sway over large segments of the population, including: anti-femininity, achievement, eschewal of the appearance of weakness, and adventure, risk, and violence.” The report also links this ideology to homophobia, bullying and sexual harassment.
Simply incredible. You can read the full report here if you wish, but here’s a short summary which demonstrates this newly adopted standard of describing masculinity (with a thinly veiled conflation with conservative values) as something dangerous and destructive.
The main thrust of the subsequent research is that traditional masculinity—marked by stoicism, competitiveness, dominance and aggression—is, on the whole, harmful. Men socialized in this way are less likely to engage in healthy behaviors. For example, a 2011 study led by Kristen Springer, PhD, of Rutgers University, found that men with the strongest beliefs about masculinity were only half as likely as men with more moderate masculine beliefs to get preventive health care. And in 2007, researchers led by James Mahalik, PhD, of Boston College, found that the more men conformed to masculine norms, the more likely they were to consider as normal risky health behaviors such as heavy drinking, using tobacco and avoiding vegetables, and to engage in these risky behaviors themselves.
Holy smokes. Apparently attributes such as “stoicism, competitiveness, dominance, and aggression” should now be bred out of society. I suppose competitiveness is a negative attribute if you’re trying to remake society into a socialist model. I’m also sitting here trying to picture what sort of military you could lead into the field without dominance and aggression.
 
We’re apparently supposed to believe that the male ideal in the 21st century is essentially a nation full of pajama boys. Let’s all pour a cup of hot chocolate and talk about our feelings. And in the process, attempt to tamp down and drown out millions of years worth of evolution and instincts. No thanks, folks. If this is the brave new world we’re leaving for the next generation, I’m grateful that I won’t live to see too many decades of it. Best of luck to the rest of you.

 
 
Thank You Mr Shaw and Hot Air. 

Wednesday, January 3, 2018

APA Honors Implicit Bias Research Founders, Despite Questions of Legitimacy

freebeacon
Rachel Frommer
January 3, 2018 2:40 pm

The country's authoritative professional organization of psychologists has given one of its highest honors to the founders of implicit bias research, who have been recognized for their work developing the theory.

Professors Anthony G. Greenwald and Mahzarin R. Banaji received the 2017 Award for Distinguished Scientific Contributions from the American Psychological Association for "identifying how the ordinary cognitive processes can produce biases."

The professors' research into the concept of unconsciously ingrained stereotypes motivating our feelings and thoughts began in the 1990s. Within a few years, they founded Project Implicit, a non-profit that conducts workshops on diversity and inclusion, and developed the Implicit Association Test, which can purportedly assess the extent of a person's unconscious racist, sexist, ableist, ageist, and anti-fat beliefs. The 14 versions of the test examine the unconscious connections between weapons and race, Native Americans and styles of clothing, and gender and subject matter.

One of the more recent permutations asks the test-taker to pack "bad" adjectives such as "gross" and "annoy" under a "Donald Trump" category, and "good" adjectives like "fabulous" under past presidents, including Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan.

Greenwald, a social psychologist at the University of Washington, and Banaji, chair of Harvard's psychology department, claim the test has been taken by over 14 million people in 39 countries since 1995, their theory having gained further popularity after publication of their 2013 book The Blindspot: Hidden Biases of Good People.

"It's sobering to discover that whatever you believe intellectually, you're biased about race, gender, age, or disability," wrote New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof in 2015.

Implicit bias reeducation has been widely integrated into freshman orientations and faculty training, however the efficacy of such instruction and the legitimacy of the research it is based on have been called into question.

A large-scale analysis last year by reporter Jesse Singal of Greenwald's and Banaji's work found a severe lack of rigorous peer-review of the science underlying the test, and a failure on the part of the theorists to prove rather than presume what was going on in people's unconscious.

Meanwhile, a meta-analysis reviewing the results of 426 studies with 72,000 subjects on implicit bias, published in 2016, found that coaching against unconscious bias "does not necessarily lead to changes in explicit bias or behavior."

Greenwald said in a statement to Campus Reform that he and Banaji "know that awards for our work are not the equivalent of establishing the scientific validity of our work," and they are pursuing further "research to convince ourselves of the validity of our theories."

"Awards for scientific work are not measures of quality of the work—they are more indicators of acceptance within the profession," he added. "Banaji and I are fortunate that our work has received this approval. We are grateful. But not all of the attention that our work has received has been favorable."

The pair were selected by the six-person Committee on Scientific Awards to be so honored by the APA, the largest trade association of its kind with 120,000 members, a $115 million budget, and nearly 100 journals published annually.



Thank You Ms Frommer and Free Beacon. 



Boy, this is a tough one.

Implicit Bias.

As in, "Unless I Paste You with a Diagnostic Label/Billing Code, I won't Have You as a Continuing Stream of Income/Cash Cow/All Day Sucker, for years to come."

But don't sweat it folks. No Big Deal.


Research Must Continue, Because Hope Remains For A Cure.

Friday, March 31, 2017

American Psychological Association (Here We Go Again) Claims Global Warming Is Making People 'Mentally Unhinged'

The Home Shopping Network on bad acid.

Buy Now! Limited Quantities!

Only 37 minutes remaining at this special price to Validate and Relieve Your Personal, Manufactured through Willfully Remaining Uniformed, Narcissistic Do-Gooder Guilt by Joining Our Cult.

Buy in NOW by sending Everything you, your children, everyone else and their children will ever earn!

weaselzippers



Al Gore unavailable for comment.

Via Seeker:

Climate change is making us mentally unhinged — and not because of the stress we might endure when squabbling with a family member or co-worker about its causes or possible solutions.

Global warming is already bringing about more extreme weather events, like powerful storms, which can cause devastating inland flooding or transform coastal communities into heaps of wreckage. The death, displacement, and personal injury brought about disasters are traumatizing survivors in the immediate aftermath and leaving some with long-term post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), according to a report by the American Psychological Association and ecoAmerica, a nonprofit focused on climate change.

The study, Mental Health and Our Changing Climate, is a follow up to a 2014 report.

Susan Clayton, a psychologist at the College of Wooster and co-author of the new report, said people who have been through disasters often used terms like “terrified” when describing what happened.

“So not surprisingly negative experience is a common denominator for the people who have been through this,” she said. “And estimates between seven and 40 percent of people who are experiencing natural disasters have some sort of mental health problem, such as anxiety or depression.”

 
Thank You Zip and Seeker. 


Anyone else for a shot of Mental/Junk Political 'Health'?

Climate Depot