APA declares traditional masculinity pathological

[Western Vale Confederacy]

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.

Overweight cats, the new method of strength exercises!

[Lanoraie II]

Alright.



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.



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.

Oh I really hate how we can't just quote the most recent post....Anyway, that tells us that the social aspect of what it means to be masculine is partially nature, partially nurture, and it's a common hard-left claim to say that it's all nurture. As for efficiency in evolution...those two things don't always go hand-in-hand, ala deer having absolute garbage eyesight.

[Kubra]

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

Overweight cats, the new method of strength exercises!

I mean, irregular loads are a good way of building stablizers before tackling heavy loads, if that's what's got one at a plateau.

[Imperialisium]

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.

My apologies if I offended you. I did not think it'd be rude to point out an obvious fact. A good Psychologist doesn't pander to avoid upsetting someone. Which is why seeing a Psychologist for therapeutic or psychiatric reasons can often be a hard thing to do simply for the reason we will often say things that an individual does not want to hear.

Social Construct is not a buzz phrase. It does have a scientific meaning that predates the informal lingo often thrown around today and is directly related to the theory of Social Constructivism.

People can argue whatever they wish. I'm not arguing people's opinions. I'm arguing for the facts. I can tell you factually that everything is not instinctively based. Someone can believe such, more power to them, they have a right to their opinion. But opinions are not facts. Instincts are grounded in social and environmental learning. Genetics does play a part but it is at most 50% of the part. The other half or more comes from a person's social and environmental situation that often overrides the genes.

For example there is a gene that makes one predisposed to murder. It is dubbed the Warrior Gene by scientists. But having it does not mean you'll kill someone. The vast majority of people who have it never kill anyone and this statistically correlates to their social pressures giving environmental stimuli to the brain.

[Democratic Empire of Romania]

Is this sarcasm or are you actually supporting this ?

Sarcasm.

Thanks

[Kubra]

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.

Oh I really hate how we can't just quote the most recent post....Anyway, that tells us that the social aspect of what it means to be masculine is partially nature, partially nurture, and it's a common hard-left claim to say that it's all nurture. As for efficiency in evolution...those two things don't always go hand-in-hand, ala deer having absolute garbage eyesight.

perhaps not, but we can acknowledge the figure of the british dandy, the spanish caudillo, and the australian tourist (ya'll know the type) as expressing masculinity, but in ways that are quite disparate. Hence, masculinities. I'm gonna take the aussie over the caudillo any day, he might throw a punch but he probably won't kill me. Aggression and preening is simply a drive, its expression does not necessarily have unifying characteristics beyond a basic drive.
Deer can see way better at night that we can, and would be otherwise quite adapted, were it not for us and our pesky arrows.

[Lanoraie II]

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.

My apologies if I offended you. I did not think it'd be rude to point out an obvious fact. A good Psychologist doesn't pander to avoid upsetting someone. Which is why seeing a Psychologist for therapeutic or psychiatric reasons can often be a hard thing to do simply for the reason we will often say things that an individual does not want to hear.

Social Construct is not a buzz phrase. It does have a scientific meaning that predates the informal lingo often thrown around today and is directly related to the theory of Social Constructivism.

People can argue whatever they wish. I'm not arguing people's opinions. I'm arguing for the facts. I can tell you factually that everything is not instinctively based. Someone can believe such, more power to them, they have a right to their opinion. But opinions are not facts. Instincts are grounded in social and environmental learning. Genetics does play a part but it is at most 50% of the part. The other half or more comes from a person's social and environmental situation that often overrides the genes.

For example there is a gene that makes one predisposed to murder. It is dubbed the Warrior Gene by scientists. But having it does not mean you'll kill someone. The vast majority of people who have it never kill anyone and this statistically correlates to their social pressures giving environmental stimuli to the brain.

I'm arguing for the facts too, which is why I was pointing out the bias that OP also picked up on, and why I'm so annoyed by all these crap studies that make headlines, and when you read how it was carried out (and sometimes who funded it), you can't believe people will read the headline and fall for it. 50% is more than enough reason to include the genetic in their study.

I was mostly unfamiliar of the theory of Social Constructivism vs the informal lingo. I am a scientist in training but my work is in the forest measuring trees and collecting samples of bear fur, far away from the human sciences. I'd also like to point out that facts are not always facts and may, in fact, (hehe) be wrong. Not arguing in defense of flat-earthers though. Sometimes you just have to take them to the top of Mt. Everest and point at the curvature of the land before they get it.

[Lanoraie II]

Oh I really hate how we can't just quote the most recent post....Anyway, that tells us that the social aspect of what it means to be masculine is partially nature, partially nurture, and it's a common hard-left claim to say that it's all nurture. As for efficiency in evolution...those two things don't always go hand-in-hand, ala deer having absolute garbage eyesight.

perhaps not, but we can acknowledge the figure of the british dandy, the spanish caudillo, and the australian tourist (ya'll know the type) as expressing masculinity, but in ways that are quite disparate. Hence, masculinities. I'm gonna take the aussie over the caudillo any day, he might throw a punch but he probably won't kill me. Aggression and preening is simply a drive, its expression does not necessarily have unifying characteristics beyond a basic drive.
Deer can see way better at night that we can, and would be otherwise quite adapted, were it not for us and our pesky arrows.

That's true, they can, but I see many, many, MANY deer wandering around in daytime and it's like...why. Why did you evolve this way? Why must you run AT my car? Why must you lay down in the middle of my lane after I creep towards and honk at you? Why are you the way that you are?

You're right about all you said.

[Lamoni]

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.

*** Warning for trolling ***

[Imperialisium]

My apologies if I offended you. I did not think it'd be rude to point out an obvious fact. A good Psychologist doesn't pander to avoid upsetting someone. Which is why seeing a Psychologist for therapeutic or psychiatric reasons can often be a hard thing to do simply for the reason we will often say things that an individual does not want to hear.

Social Construct is not a buzz phrase. It does have a scientific meaning that predates the informal lingo often thrown around today and is directly related to the theory of Social Constructivism.

People can argue whatever they wish. I'm not arguing people's opinions. I'm arguing for the facts. I can tell you factually that everything is not instinctively based. Someone can believe such, more power to them, they have a right to their opinion. But opinions are not facts. Instincts are grounded in social and environmental learning. Genetics does play a part but it is at most 50% of the part. The other half or more comes from a person's social and environmental situation that often overrides the genes.

For example there is a gene that makes one predisposed to murder. It is dubbed the Warrior Gene by scientists. But having it does not mean you'll kill someone. The vast majority of people who have it never kill anyone and this statistically correlates to their social pressures giving environmental stimuli to the brain.

I'm arguing for the facts too, which is why I was pointing out the bias that OP also picked up on, and why I'm so annoyed by all these crap studies that make headlines, and when you read how it was carried out (and sometimes who funded it), you can't believe people will read the headline and fall for it. 50% is more than enough reason to include the genetic in their study.

I was mostly unfamiliar of the theory of Social Constructivism vs the informal lingo. I am a scientist in training but my work is in the forest measuring trees and collecting samples of bear fur, far away from the human sciences. I'd also like to point out that facts are not always facts and may, in fact, (hehe) be wrong. Not arguing in defense of flat-earthers though. Sometimes you just have to take them to the top of Mt. Everest and point at the curvature of the land before they get it.

I even pointed out the bias in the OP. Thats why I say Psychology Today isn't a good source since they often take studies and twist them into their own view.

They did include it in their study. Including genetics in every study would be redundant, especially if the focus isn't on that, nor do they have to go out and blatantly say genetics is possibly involved. Psychologists can surmise that being a possibility without it being spelled out for them.

Now, I know you're in training, so I don't mean to bash you over the head to hard. I was in your place at some point as well. So I'll leave you with some sage advice that took me some time to learn myself.

Facts are facts unless proven otherwise. No need to say that facts may change based on new data as if it justifies your point (it doesn't).

[Kubra]

perhaps not, but we can acknowledge the figure of the british dandy, the spanish caudillo, and the australian tourist (ya'll know the type) as expressing masculinity, but in ways that are quite disparate. Hence, masculinities. I'm gonna take the aussie over the caudillo any day, he might throw a punch but he probably won't kill me. Aggression and preening is simply a drive, its expression does not necessarily have unifying characteristics beyond a basic drive.
Deer can see way better at night that we can, and would be otherwise quite adapted, were it not for us and our pesky arrows.

That's true, they can, but I see many, many, MANY deer wandering around in daytime and it's like...why. Why did you evolve this way? Why must you run AT my car? Why must you lay down in the middle of my lane after I creep towards and honk at you? Why are you the way that you are?

You're right about all you said.

Hey, at least it hasn't been a moose. That shit's deadly.

[Zapato]

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.

You say this but I'm having a difficult time seeing it in the paper. Can you provide me some quotes to show their value judgements? Where, exactly, do they say traditional masculinity is inherently wrong?

[Costa Fierro]

Psychology cannot be divorced from politics.

If psychologists are going to perpetrate pseudoscience in the name of "progress", then they do not deserve to be psychologists. They should find jobs more suited to their degrees, like making sandwiches at Subway.

[Esternial]

Psychology cannot be divorced from politics.

If psychologists are going to perpetrate pseudoscience in the name of "progress", then they do not deserve to be psychologists. They should find jobs more suited to their degrees, like making sandwiches at Subway.

Psychology is a pseudoscience.

[Alvecia]

If psychologists are going to perpetrate pseudoscience in the name of "progress", then they do not deserve to be psychologists. They should find jobs more suited to their degrees, like making sandwiches at Subway.

Psychology is a pseudoscience.

Well shit, guess I've been paying that therapist for nothing.

Eh, the voices are probably right anyways.

[Western Vale Confederacy]

If psychologists are going to perpetrate pseudoscience in the name of "progress", then they do not deserve to be psychologists. They should find jobs more suited to their degrees, like making sandwiches at Subway.

Psychology is a pseudoscience.

I wouldn't say that it is a pseudoscience, but existing biases taint it like blood on a pristine white T-shirt.

[The Huskar Social Union]

Psychology is a pseudoscience.

Well shit, guess I've been paying that therapist for nothing.

Eh, the voices are probably right anyways.

DO YOU HEAR THE VOICES TOO?

[Esternial]

Psychology is a pseudoscience.

I wouldn't say that it is a pseudoscience, but existing biases taint it like blood on a pristine white T-shirt.

As I see it, psychology lacks sufficient objective measurement, which to me makes it a pseudoscience.

But I'm sure plenty of psychologist also use some tools used by psychiatrists and "drift" between both fields.

[Imperializt Russia]

For a pointed example on the quality of the science, microaggression research is extremely weak from a scientific perspective.

This is a single-author literature review. It's also unintentionally funny.

I conclude with 18 suggestions for advancing the scientific status of the MRP, recommend abandonment of
the term “microaggression,” and call for a moratorium on microaggression training programs and publicly distributed
microaggression lists pending research to address the MRP’s scientific limitations.

This literally sounds like Carl of Swindon's ramblings about "please cancel social justice" petition.

[Alvecia]

I wouldn't say that it is a pseudoscience, but existing biases taint it like blood on a pristine white T-shirt.

As I see it, psychology lacks sufficient objective measurement, which to me makes it a pseudoscience.

But I'm sure plenty of psychologist also use some tools used by psychiatrists and "drift" between both fields.

I think going as far as to call it a pseudoscience is a bit far. A term that includes fields that practice literal magic doesn't quite fit. Sure it's not as hard as the other sciences, but to delegitimise it as a field altogether is too much.
It's not like you can't gleam actual provable hypothesese from analysing human behaviour.

Though in fairness, I was getting psychiatrists and psychologists mixed up earlier

[Ostroeuropa]

Masculinity and toxic masculinity are two different things.

In practice. In theory toxic masculinity as a term is vague. Somewhat ironically, I could ask 100 self-professed feminists to give me examples of what toxic masculinity is or how they'd define it, and I'd get 100 different answers.

The reality is that toxic masculinity means whatever the person using the term wants it to mean. That way behaviour that doesn't benefit women could be considered as toxic masculinity, or social issues that men bring up that feminism has a significant impact on could be argued away as toxic masculinity. It's like patriarchy; a vague, meaningless term that allows feminists to do whatever they want with it.

I understand the need to critique the toxic, harmful mindsets sometimes associated with males who are suppressed emotionally and are sort of stunted in some regards, but this paper is heavy-handed.

That's the way it's supposed to be. It's supposed to be heavy handed because how else can you control half the population if not through convincing them that their problems are their own?

This is a result of feminists appropriating the term because they viewed it as a cheap excuse to disparage men and masculinity. It is incoherent because they have divorced it from its original meaning and use it to just attack men and masculinity they dislike in subjective terms corresponding to the personal chauvinism and prejudices of the feminist speaking.

In its original definition it lacked any description of particular behaviors or mindsets, instead describing masculinity which forms in the absence of "deep" masculinity as "toxic" masculinity. Deep masculinity is masculinity formed from male bonds, male spaces, and being "submerged" in male bonds. Absent that, it turns toxic.

How that toxicity presents is not specified because it is individual to the person.

Because this is the antithesis of feminist action and rhetoric on the subject, they didn't bother appropriating that bit, and just use it as an insult they hurl out on the spurious justification that "Mras came up with it tho!"

despite the fact that, 1. no, the Mythopoetic mens movement did, and 2. They spent about 95% of the time discussing deep masculinity and how to promote it and what it means rather than focusing on the negative. Feminists focus on toxic masculinity because their framework leads them to misandrous and anti-male worldviews, and would rather promote the meme that men are ill and deviant and dangerous than promote that men should act particular ways.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

Psychology cannot be divorced from politics.

If psychologists are going to perpetrate pseudoscience in the name of "progress", then they do not deserve to be psychologists. They should find jobs more suited to their degrees, like making sandwiches at Subway.

Agreed.

[Ostroeuropa]

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

Clinical psychologists should believe in male privilege.

Although privilege has not applied to all
boys and men in equal measure, in the
aggregate, males experience a greater
degree of social and economic power than
girls and women

+
Clinical psychologists should be trying to push for change "institutional, cultural, and systemic" level.


This is a political conclusion and an interjecting of feminist politics into psychology.
Within the context of it, it is demanding psychologists stop trying to actually help men, and instead accept feminist dogmatisms that feminist chauvinism being asserted at men as fact will "Help" them, despite no empirical evidence for this being the case. That is a political conclusion and demand.

It is a demand psychologists play the role of a feminist indoctrinator and try to "change" men to suit feminists demands.
This is unethical in psychological terms. It's another good example of how allowing a feminist a position of authority erodes an institution and its benefits for society, because their biases and chauvinism are a totalizing worldview that effect everything they do. This is feminists fucking up psychology like they have fucked up every institution they have touched and been allowed to govern.

They also demand people believe feminist guff about microaggressions, when as Tahar points out, the evidence simply isn't there from a scientific perspective to support feminist claims.

When working with boys and men, psychologists can address issues of privilege
and power related to sexism in a developmentally appropriate way to help them
obtain the knowledge, attitudes, and skills
to be effective allies

"In which feminists fuck over the health profession and make men more ill because they're so obsessed with women they think mens healthcare should focus on making men allies to the feminist cause."

This is, to be completely clear, fucking unethical. It is gynocentrism being shoved down the throat of a healthcare profession that is supposed to be patient centered, not centered on feminism and its obsessive chauvinism being validated and forcing patients to conform to it.

PRIVILEGE
Privilege refers to unearned sources of social status, power, and
institutionalized advantage experienced by individuals by virtue of
their culturally valued and dominant social identities (e.g., White,
Christian, male, and middle/upper class; McIntosh, 2008).

This is a political claim and a progressive one in the text itself, despite the fact male privilege is contested and the overwhelming majority of the public are not feminists. Beyond that, it doesn't note female privilege.

This is an example of medicalizing a social issue to absolve the perpetrators of responsibility, itself a result of the political bias of the people here and the feminist hostility to recognizing male disadvantage as a result of womens sexism, prefering instead to blame men for their mindsets and blaming the victim:

Indeed, boys and men are overrepresented in a variety of
psychological and social problems. For example, boys are disproportionately represented among schoolchildren with learning difficulties (e.g., lower standardized test scores)

We know from actual empirical study rather than mere assertions of feminist hatred and prejudice that boys are marked lower for the same work. To blame this on them being ill is disgusting, but what can you expect? The feminist worldview isn't capable of doing any different.


Some of it is decent, see here where they note the dissenting opinions for why men don't seek help;

Other investigations have identified
systemic gender bias toward adult men in psychotherapy (Mahalik
et al., 2012) and in other helping services such as domestic abuse
shelters (Douglas & Hines, 2011). Broader societal factors, such as
the stigma of seeking psychological help, also negatively impact
men’s help-seeking behaviors and the subsequent delivery of psy-
4 APA | Guidelines for Psychological Practice with Boys and Men
chological services (Hammer et al., 2013; Mackenzie, Gekoski, &
Knox, 2006; Mahalik et al., 2012).

Here's some more feminist shite;

Sexism exists as a byproduct, reinforcer, and justification of male privilege.

And here, we see the fucking duluth model, straight up referenced as factual and something psychologists should take seriously;

men use violence and control in relationships as a way of maintaining sexist
beliefs and dominance over women (e.g.,
the Duluth Model; Pence & Paymar, 1993).

""What bias tho"
Says Vassenor.

There's positive elements in there where a problem is recognized, but they are largely overshadowed by feminist compulsions and misdiangosis and insistence on feeding men more arsenic because it will make them well.

Notably one of the better parts is when they note that male violence and sexual aggressiveness is largely correlated with their mistreatment as children and by the school system.

Childhood physical and/or sexual abuse victimization has
been found to be a significant precursor
to aggressive behavior in boys and men
(Jennings, Piquero, & Reingle, 2012; Tyler,
Johnson, & Brownridge, 2008). O

Reminder that most boys report a female sexual abuser.

Etc.


Here's the biggest fucking laugh though and it goes back to what someone noted earlier about how this will chase men away:

Rationale
A disparity exists between the occurrence
and severity of men’s mental health problems and the disproportionately low number of men served by psychological services (Englar-Carlson, 2014). It has been
suggested that many men do not seek psychological help because services are not in
alignment with masculine cultural norms
that equate asking for assistance for psychological and emotional concerns with
shame and weakness (Addis & Mahalik,
2003). An understanding of gender norms
when designing services for boys and men
may lead to greater participation among
this population (Mahalik et al., 2012).

https://www.survation.com/uk-attitudes- ... t-society/

Feminism: 7% of men agree feminism can help them.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... tal-health

(Of those with mental health issues) 28% of men admitted that they had not sought medical help, in other words: 72% of men seek the help of psychologists.

Get ready to see that plummet now that feminists have toxified it with their hate ideology.

[Tahar Joblis]

It's not Valerie Solanas radfem, but it is no less radfem than, say, Robin Morgan. It's not TERFy, but it's definitely in the camp of "culture [patriarchy] oppresses women and privileges men, we need to enact cultural reform upon masculinity, et cetera."

My understanding is that radfems by definition want to abolish gender itself. But point taken.

With good research.

There's a reason psychology has a replication crisis. There's a lot of bad research out there (including in particular plenty coming out of gender studies, in my unfortunately extensive experience).

Of course. And that is especially true of social psychology. That's why I would advocate reading this with skepticism.

Note O'Neil is one of the authors on that paper. Plenty of these citations are to the authors, citation team, and their collaborators, which is not unusual in any event, but would help explain why a particularly weak citation got attached to the claim.

I recognize Lisak's name, and not in a good way. I've talked about the problems with a few of his papers here on NSG from time to time.

However, citation quantity is no guarantee of citation quality. That wasn't a cherry-picked citation. That was literally just the first citation I pulled out looking for what they were citing on their recommendation that men be trained to become aware of their purported male privilege. There are many weak papers out there that can be cited for all kinds of "facts," and perhaps more importantly, a lot of good research that's gotten squeezed out that really would be helpful to put in a set of guidelines somewhere.

Just as some of the things they're saying in the guidelines are true, some of the citations are to perfectly good science... just generally not the ones attached to the mainly ideological stuff I'm objecting to.

EDIT: Mind you, I should add that "write the paper and then have people dig up citations to support what you want to say," while typical practice in some fields, is not really how you come up with a good synthesis of what the research in the field says is good clinical practice.

Fair enough. I don't recognize any of those names myself, because social psychology is not my area of interest within psychology.

A point to consider: Why is a set of clinical guidelines mainly citing social psychologists and educational psychologists?

Clinical psychology is literally its own area of study. Psychology as a field is enormous, and of the many fields of psychology, those two are not particularly closely tied to clinical practice. Nor are those the non-clinical fields most closely tied to the study of how to treat mental health.

What social psychology and educational psychology have in common is the sociology of the fields itself, which leads to the outcome that both are areas in which ideological position papers thinly dressed up as "scientific research" are more easily published.

There will be some who will dismiss all the research this paper is based on because they don't like the conclusions. It would be ridiculous to expect someone to go through all the cited research and pick out which papers are good and which are bad, and besides that's something only someone with specialized training can do. I just meant I doubt all the research is crap.

I'm pretty sure that most of the research that's attached to the problematic parts ranges from mediocre to blatantly non-scientific. Some will turn out to be selectively misrepresented by the APA guidelines - I would not be surprised if the paper cited for the line I singled out as true but misleading re: young black boys' and young white boys' suicide risks was perfectly good, for example.

"Research" conducted by gender studies academia doesn't have a good peer review system. With that being said, it appears that same kind of ideology is being used in this new era of psychology, because their terms are used throughout sections of this paper.

There are a lot of shitty journals who will accept any paper without even reading it. That's not new. Hypatia is notorious for its low standards. We can't draw conclusions about the broader state of gender studies because two people pranked some probably low-impact journals with shitposts. We also can't assume psychology has been overtaken by SJWs because one paper used words like "privilege".

Hypatia is notoriously one of the top journals in feminist philosophy. Feminist philosophers complained extensively about it being ranked a B-level journal in philosophy in general. "Grievance studies" is a pretty good term in some ways, but it's really mostly gender studies with a few adjunct fields tacked on the sides.

Gender, Place, and Culture, the journal accepting and awarding the "dog park" paper, is one of the top-ranked gender studies journals. Most of their targets were among the most prestigious journals specialized in their area; you can look here at how the various metrics of ranking the journals has come out. (Note the numbers vary significantly from year to year.)

There aren't many truly high-impact gender studies journals by the metrics, which is not really unusual for journals in specialized areas, and the grievance studies scholars Boghossian, Pluckrose, and Lindsay are talking about do tend to complain a lot about how hard it is to publish outside of their silo in the more general journals. (Some can and do, e.g., the now-infamous "himmicanes" paper, but there are a lot of g.s. scholars putting out a high volume of work to get tenure.) The journals they got papers out in are the journals that scholars in those fields would rely on in order to pass tenure review, and they got enough out in enough "good" to actually pass the research component of tenure review in a typical tenure-track position.

There are two major effects they're pointing out. First, grievance study scholars don't really have to conduct quality research in order to get tenure; they can essentially rely on what amount to jargon-filled opinion papers affirming grievance study ideology. Second, the things asserted in those papers become citable "facts" as far as most writers are concerned, which puts it in a pipeline that can lead towards policy.

This case is an example of the second problem: The APA guidelines look and sound quite authoritative, and they can provide authoritative-sounding citations for everything they say - even though what's being asserted may be completely unfounded from a scientific perspective.

The field of psychology as a whole has not been taken over, but it's in the middle of a major crisis that broke out into the open over a decade ago, and the component we're talking about does make a pretty significant part of those resisting the push to clean up the area. Even sociology, which has been more thoroughly populated with grievance studies scholars (mostly, grievance studies scholars are located within sociology or administration) has not really been entirely taken over, and the more general sociology journals are among the ones that rejected the papers from Boghossian, Pluckrose, and Lindsay.

[Thermodolia]

As I see it, psychology lacks sufficient objective measurement, which to me makes it a pseudoscience.

But I'm sure plenty of psychologist also use some tools used by psychiatrists and "drift" between both fields.

I think going as far as to call it a pseudoscience is a bit far. A term that includes fields that practice literal magic doesn't quite fit. Sure it's not as hard as the other sciences, but to delegitimise it as a field altogether is too much.
It's not like you can't gleam actual provable hypothesese from analysing human behaviour.

Though in fairness, I was getting psychiatrists and psychologists mixed up earlier

It’s really not hard to get them mixed up. I do it pretty much constantly