APA declares traditional masculinity pathological

[Willaura]

Thank you Mr. Rabbinowitz, very cool.

[Kubra]

Thank you Mr. Rabbinowitz, very cool.

Oh boy, I sure don't know who you're referring to.
You ain't gonna last here, bruv.

[Willaura]

Thank you Mr. Rabbinowitz, very cool.

Oh boy, I sure don't know who you're referring to.
You ain't gonna last here, bruv.

What rule have I broken?

[Lanoraie II]

Just did a quick scan of it. So this is why people don't consider psychology to be a real science. This is blatant propaganda with a bunch of psychobabble stuffed in, plain and simple. Here's the real science: Men are genetically predisposed to act in a certain way. Male hormones aren't just placebo, they have a real effect on how men exist on this Earth. And there's nothing inherently wrong with that. Men evolved to be women's protectors, companions, and needed muscle. And you will find that most men in the world want to be exactly that. Traditional masculinity is not inherently wrong, and to say otherwise is to fib. Actual psychologists should study human behavior without bias and ignore this publication for the propagating garbage it is.

[Kubra]

Just did a quick scan of it. So this is why people don't consider psychology to be a real science. This is blatant propaganda with a bunch of psychobabble stuffed in, plain and simple. Here's the real science: Men are genetically predisposed to act in a certain way. Male hormones aren't just placebo, they have a real effect on how men exist on this Earth. And there's nothing inherently wrong with that. Men evolved to be women's protectors, companions, and needed muscle. And you will find that most men in the world want to be exactly that. Traditional masculinity is not inherently wrong, and to say otherwise is to fib. Actual psychologists should study human behavior without bias and ignore this publication for the propagating garbage it is.

what's ur tested 1-5rm dl

[Lanoraie II]

what's ur tested 1-5rm dl

My what?

[ShakaZuli]

Yes, the best would be to castrate western whites. This will heal them from pathological masculinity. There is enough masculine minorities and they could just take the place of whites.

[Kubra]

what's ur tested 1-5rm dl

My what?

how much do you deadlift?

[Imperialisium]

Just did a quick scan of it. So this is why people don't consider psychology to be a real science. This is blatant propaganda with a bunch of psychobabble stuffed in, plain and simple. Here's the real science: Men are genetically predisposed to act in a certain way. Male hormones aren't just placebo, they have a real effect on how men exist on this Earth. And there's nothing inherently wrong with that. Men evolved to be women's protectors, companions, and needed muscle. And you will find that most men in the world want to be exactly that. Traditional masculinity is not inherently wrong, and to say otherwise is to fib. Actual psychologists should study human behavior without bias and ignore this publication for the propagating garbage it is.

Plenty of people consider Psychology a science. That is well established within the scientific community.

The OP is why people point out bad science can occur in psychology. Just like in any other field there is bad science that is generally considered in a negative view.

If you read the paper (the study, not Psychology Today which is NOT an academic source. Sorry, I know its popular but its about as reliable as buzzfeed) it points out how Boys and Men have been looked at as normative. Normative being the operative word for what scientists would consider normal. Instead to look at them subjectively and objectively rather than just inherently normal which leads to a bunch of issues the paper defines.

Now the paper is not perfect, its got shaky bits, and I personally as a Psychologist disagree with parts of it and would like further analysis of these supposed conclusions to access their validity.

Further, a proper Psychological study would control for bias. So most Psychological studies do not have political bias in them and if they do they are usually criticized for that. How you may ask? For those of us here who are not Psychologists there is a board that you submit your planned study towards and they basically scrutinize every aspect of it. If it fails in any one regards; accounting for bias, having a sufficient sample group, the ethical standing of it, does it violate protected groups, is it potentially harmful or have any known danger; then it would be rejected.

[Lanoraie II]

how much do you deadlift?

I can carry two overweight cats and one normal weight cat at once. I'm a cardio bunny and I just lift hand weights.

[Kubra]

how much do you deadlift?

I can carry two overweight cats and one normal weight cat at once. I'm a cardio bunny and I just lift hand weights.

Are you a man?

[Lanoraie II]

Just did a quick scan of it. So this is why people don't consider psychology to be a real science. This is blatant propaganda with a bunch of psychobabble stuffed in, plain and simple. Here's the real science: Men are genetically predisposed to act in a certain way. Male hormones aren't just placebo, they have a real effect on how men exist on this Earth. And there's nothing inherently wrong with that. Men evolved to be women's protectors, companions, and needed muscle. And you will find that most men in the world want to be exactly that. Traditional masculinity is not inherently wrong, and to say otherwise is to fib. Actual psychologists should study human behavior without bias and ignore this publication for the propagating garbage it is.

Plenty of people consider Psychology a science. That is well established within the scientific community.

The OP is why people point out bad science can occur in psychology. Just like in any other field there is bad science that is generally considered in a negative view.

If you read the paper (the study, not Psychology Today which is NOT an academic source. Sorry, I know its popular but its about as reliable as buzzfeed) it points out how Boys and Men have been looked at as normative. Normative being the operative word for what scientists would consider normal. Instead to look at them subjectively and objectively rather than just inherently normal which leads to a bunch of issues the paper defines.

Now the paper is not perfect, its got shaky bits, and I personally as a Psychologist disagree with parts of it and would like further analysis of these supposed conclusions to access their validity.

Further, a proper Psychological study would control for bias. So most Psychological studies do not have political bias in them and if they do they are usually criticized for that. How you may ask? For those of us here who are not Psychologists there is a board that you submit your planned study towards and they basically scrutinize every aspect of it. If it fails in any one regards; accounting for bias, having a sufficient sample group, the ethical standing of it, does it violate protected groups, is it potentially harmful or have any known danger; then it would be rejected.

That board can very easily interject their own politics, and other psychologists can get away with it if the board allows them. It's not even close to a perfect system. (For the record, I do consider psychology a science, but there's not much anything scientific in this mumbo jumbo.) The bias is strong in this paper as it says they should be social constructivists--telling them what they should believe. Belief should not factor into it whatsoever, and not everything is a social construct.

[Lanoraie II]

Are you a man?

No. I'm a woman.

[Kubra]

No. I'm a woman.

Oh, well, carry on, then.
Thank you though for being honest on the matter of your lifting capabilities. It's not something easily wrung out of folks.

[Democratic Empire of Romania]

Yes, the best would be to castrate western whites. This will heal them from pathological masculinity. There is enough masculine minorities and they could just take the place of whites.

Is this sarcasm or are you actually supporting this ?

[Vassenor]

Plenty of people consider Psychology a science. That is well established within the scientific community.

The OP is why people point out bad science can occur in psychology. Just like in any other field there is bad science that is generally considered in a negative view.

If you read the paper (the study, not Psychology Today which is NOT an academic source. Sorry, I know its popular but its about as reliable as buzzfeed) it points out how Boys and Men have been looked at as normative. Normative being the operative word for what scientists would consider normal. Instead to look at them subjectively and objectively rather than just inherently normal which leads to a bunch of issues the paper defines.

Now the paper is not perfect, its got shaky bits, and I personally as a Psychologist disagree with parts of it and would like further analysis of these supposed conclusions to access their validity.

Further, a proper Psychological study would control for bias. So most Psychological studies do not have political bias in them and if they do they are usually criticized for that. How you may ask? For those of us here who are not Psychologists there is a board that you submit your planned study towards and they basically scrutinize every aspect of it. If it fails in any one regards; accounting for bias, having a sufficient sample group, the ethical standing of it, does it violate protected groups, is it potentially harmful or have any known danger; then it would be rejected.

That board can very easily interject their own politics, and other psychologists can get away with it if the board allows them. It's not even close to a perfect system. (For the record, I do consider psychology a science, but there's not much anything scientific in this mumbo jumbo.) The bias is strong in this paper as it says they should be social constructivists--telling them what they should believe. Belief should not factor into it whatsoever, and not everything is a social construct.

So let's see examples of this bias in the text.

[Lanoraie II]

Oh, well, carry on, then.

Good talk.

[Lanoraie II]

So let's see examples of this bias in the text.

I just said it--declaring psychologists should be constructivists.

[Vassenor]

So let's see examples of this bias in the text.

I just said it--declaring psychologists should be constructivists.

I mean let's see the actual quotes from the text.

And how is it biased to suggest people build their understanding of the world based on their personal experiences?

[Imperialisium]

Plenty of people consider Psychology a science. That is well established within the scientific community.

The OP is why people point out bad science can occur in psychology. Just like in any other field there is bad science that is generally considered in a negative view.

If you read the paper (the study, not Psychology Today which is NOT an academic source. Sorry, I know its popular but its about as reliable as buzzfeed) it points out how Boys and Men have been looked at as normative. Normative being the operative word for what scientists would consider normal. Instead to look at them subjectively and objectively rather than just inherently normal which leads to a bunch of issues the paper defines.

Now the paper is not perfect, its got shaky bits, and I personally as a Psychologist disagree with parts of it and would like further analysis of these supposed conclusions to access their validity.

Further, a proper Psychological study would control for bias. So most Psychological studies do not have political bias in them and if they do they are usually criticized for that. How you may ask? For those of us here who are not Psychologists there is a board that you submit your planned study towards and they basically scrutinize every aspect of it. If it fails in any one regards; accounting for bias, having a sufficient sample group, the ethical standing of it, does it violate protected groups, is it potentially harmful or have any known danger; then it would be rejected.

That board can very easily interject their own politics, and other psychologists can get away with it if the board allows them. It's not even close to a perfect system. (For the record, I do consider psychology a science, but there's not much anything scientific in this mumbo jumbo.) The bias is strong in this paper as it says they should be social constructivists--telling them what they should believe. Belief should not factor into it whatsoever, and not everything is a social construct.

lol No it cannot. No system is perfect but I don't think you realize how much those boards tear apart people's pitches on all ends of the spectrum. Further, the majority of older psychologists who have established positions on these boards are in fact men anyways. The only real shift is number of younger female Psychologists and the increasing openness of looking at Men with greater scrutiny than just waving their behavior as normal.

It is a guideline. Not a law, and actually has a lot of science in it. This is a guideline constructed from a Meta-Analysis of various studies. Additionally, I do not think you know what the term Social Constructivist means. Social Constructivism is the theory that Human development is socially based. Now unless you are saying that Human's being social is abnormal then I think it is fair to assume you had no idea what you were formulating your opinion on.

Everything is a social construct. The language you are using to communicate to me is a social construct. Chemistry is a social construct based on the belief in theories and laws that in practice define our knowledge on what different atoms and compounds do. The issue is whether or not a certain social construct is legitimate or not and that is were the debate truly is.

[ShakaZuli]

Yes, the best would be to castrate western whites. This will heal them from pathological masculinity. There is enough masculine minorities and they could just take the place of whites.

Is this sarcasm or are you actually supporting this ?

Sarcasm.

[Knask]

Just did a quick scan of it. So this is why people don't consider psychology to be a real science. This is blatant propaganda with a bunch of psychobabble stuffed in, plain and simple. Here's the real science: Men are genetically predisposed to act in a certain way. Male hormones aren't just placebo, they have a real effect on how men exist on this Earth. And there's nothing inherently wrong with that. Men evolved to be women's protectors, companions, and needed muscle. And you will find that most men in the world want to be exactly that. Traditional masculinity is not inherently wrong, and to say otherwise is to fib. Actual psychologists should study human behavior without bias and ignore this publication for the propagating garbage it is.

I don't agree with your assertion that men are obsolete and an evolutionary dead end.

[Lanoraie II]

I mean let's see the actual quotes from the text.

And how is it biased to suggest people build their understanding of the world based on their personal experiences?

Alright.

Psychologists strive to recognize that masculinities are constructed based on social, cultural, and contextual norms.

That's all fine and dandy, but there's a biological end to this as well. The study conveniently tiptoes around the role that hormones and chemicals in the brain play in human development and evolution. It's not a coincidence that most of human history in most parts of the world, men were the ones going out hunting, fishing, and fighting while women cooked, cleaned, and took care of the kids, just like nearly all mammals. Non-mammals, too. It's not a coincidence that women with significantly higher levels of testosterone have increased aggression and higher sex drives. Of course there are cultural, social, and contextual norms, but there are a few nigh-universal consistencies for what being a man means.

As for interjecting politics, it happens much more than you think. In fact, it happens all the time. There are evil people out there willing to manipulate and lie to achieve their goals and they are everywhere. Years ago you could open up a psychological journal and see all kinds of biases that you still see to this day, except they're typically different biases--namely, against men, especially white, heterosexual men.

And no, not everything is a social construct. Language is an evolutionary expression that we use to communicate ideas, names, thoughts, and insults. Clapping at a concert may be a social construct (clapping itself is possibly a biological instinct when people feel an extensive excitement or energy inside of them), but chemistry is not. It simply isn't. The words we use and methods to explore chemistry may be, but carbon isn't a construct. Only the name is.

Social Constructivism is the theory that Human development is socially based. Now unless you are saying that Human's being social is abnormal then I think it is fair to assume you had no idea what you were formulating your opinion on.

For a psychologist you're pretty rude. I do, in fact, know what I'm talking about, and the buzzphrase "social construct" has a somewhat different meaning than Social Constructivism. Also, there are people who argue that everything is instinctual and not socially based.

[Lanoraie II]

Just did a quick scan of it. So this is why people don't consider psychology to be a real science. This is blatant propaganda with a bunch of psychobabble stuffed in, plain and simple. Here's the real science: Men are genetically predisposed to act in a certain way. Male hormones aren't just placebo, they have a real effect on how men exist on this Earth. And there's nothing inherently wrong with that. Men evolved to be women's protectors, companions, and needed muscle. And you will find that most men in the world want to be exactly that. Traditional masculinity is not inherently wrong, and to say otherwise is to fib. Actual psychologists should study human behavior without bias and ignore this publication for the propagating garbage it is.

I don't agree with your assertion that men are obsolete and an evolutionary dead end.

U wot? Where did I imply that? Men built most things around us, they're far from obsolete.

[Kubra]

I mean let's see the actual quotes from the text.

And how is it biased to suggest people build their understanding of the world based on their personal experiences?

Alright.

Psychologists strive to recognize that masculinities are constructed based on social, cultural, and contextual norms.

That's all fine and dandy, but there's a biological end to this as well. The study conveniently tiptoes around the role that hormones and chemicals in the brain play in human development and evolution. It's not a coincidence that most of human history in most parts of the world, men were the ones going out hunting, fishing, and fighting while women cooked, cleaned, and took care of the kids, just like nearly all mammals. Non-mammals, too. It's not a coincidence that women with significantly higher levels of testosterone have increased aggression and higher sex drives. Of course there are cultural, social, and contextual norms, but there are a few nigh-universal consistencies for what being a man means.

As for interjecting politics, it happens much more than you think. In fact, it happens all the time. There are evil people out there willing to manipulate and lie to achieve their goals and they are everywhere. Years ago you could open up a psychological journal and see all kinds of biases that you still see to this day, except they're typically different biases--namely, against men, especially white, heterosexual men.

And no, not everything is a social construct. Language is an evolutionary expression that we use to communicate ideas, names, thoughts, and insults. Clapping at a concert may be a social construct (clapping itself is possibly a biological instinct when people feel an extensive excitement or energy inside of them), but chemistry is not. It simply isn't. The words we use and methods to explore chemistry may be, but carbon isn't a construct. Only the name is.

Social Constructivism is the theory that Human development is socially based. Now unless you are saying that Human's being social is abnormal then I think it is fair to assume you had no idea what you were formulating your opinion on.

For a psychologist you're pretty rude. I do, in fact, know what I'm talking about, and the buzzphrase "social construct" has a somewhat different meaning than Social Constructivism. Also, there are people who argue that everything is instinctual and not socially based.

Sure, men have some in-built aggressivities. And? What does that tell us of masculinities?
Come now, of all folks I've asked about the deadlift, you're one of the few that could answer, and you ain't even a guy. The fellows have their ideas, positive ones, of masculinity or masculinities, but it is difficult to peg concrete expression.
Language as a concept? Sure, why not? But uh, english? I mean, you'd think an evolutionary expression would be a little more efficient, like those german fellows.