That's the Brainwashing- Their Doctrine (NYT; Psychology Liberals)
Kathleen
lPick...@cdc.gov, Durlan...@yale.edu, Aa...@columbia.edu,
gary_w...@nymc.edu, scientifi...@ostp.gov,
pkru...@princeton.edu, Stanle...@fiu.edu,
margaret...@hhs.fds.gov, emcsw...@niaid.nih.gov,
afa...@niaid.nih.gov, Spin...@yahoogroups.com, kshe...@calea.org,
fit...@gmail.com, patrick.f...@usdoj.gov,
model...@sbcglobal.net, jdr...@nejm.org, let...@courant.com,
Jgerb...@cdc.gov, michae...@ct.gov, con...@po.state.ct.us,
executiv...@nytimes.com, managin...@nytimes.com, news-
ti...@nytimes.com, biz...@nytimes.com, for...@nytimes.com,
nati...@nytimes.com, dv...@cdc.gov, brigidc...@optonline.net,
tr...@hotmail.com, illino...@aol.com, jle...@courant.com,
tinaj...@yahoo.com, jhorn...@fff.org, thomas...@usdoj.gov,
thoma...@ct.gov, kur...@washpost.com, georg...@washpost.com,
p...@allegorypress.com, commissi...@po.state.ct.us,
brans...@comcast.net, vts...@comcast.net, o...@po.state.ct.us,
freet...@charter.net, scott....@po.state.ct.us,
govern...@po.state.ct.us, attorney...@ct.gov,
randall...@usdoj.gov, Robert....@yale.edu, editor@greenwich-
post.com, harol...@yale.edu, sedm...@nswbc.org, rrmcg...@aol.com,
fr...@nytimes.com, saint....@sbcglobal.net, rre...@berkeley.edu,
pcal...@tribune.com
Cc: fra...@ucia.gov, dr-ahma...@president.ir,
eugener...@washpost.com, bmi...@newstimes.com, tr...@hotmail.com,
rast...@aol.com, billc...@gmail.com, amcg...@rms-law.com,
rjmu...@aol.com, paulcrai...@yahoo.com,
criminal...@usdoj.gov, karla.d...@usdoj.gov,
christophe...@usdoj.gov, richar...@yale.edu,
harol...@yale.edu, james.p...@yale.edu, inq...@aldf.com,
ly...@idsociety.org, meganm...@theatlantic.com
Subject: That's the Brainwashing- Their Doctrine (NYT; Psychology
Liberals)
Date: Feb 8, 2011 4:45 AM
ARTICLE BELOW/NYT on SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY
=================================================
Tough to figger out.
They're brainwashed into non-scientism
and sex-based ego-centrality.
This is what they're taught, so how
tough is it to figger out why objectors
are a rarity?
This is the Religion of Me, soon to be
replaced by what we saw on Avatar. Gaia
Worship. The "Me-Becoming-God":
http://www.actionlyme.org/KABBALAH_YING.htm
Which is merely a parallel to:
http://www.actionlyme.org/DIABOLICAL_PERVERSION_PSYCHOANALYSIS.htm
EXORCIST: "Evil spirit, in the name of Jesus, announce the trap in
which you caught Richard/Rita. I ask this by the authority of the
Church, and in the name of Jesus."
DEMON: "We start with self-growth [psychoanalysis], self discovery.
We tell em, we told Rita, First, you must be yourself, find yourself,
know who you are. They stick their noses in their navel and say: I
like my own smell!!"
They're also taught to believe
everyone is a liar. They have
no real, close relationships. All
their relationships are superficial
and plastic.
They don't trust anyone. They don't
believe anyone is genuine or could
possibly be always telling the truth.
They literally diagnose truth-speakers
as "crazy." They literally SAY, that
anyone who consistently says whatever
is true, must have a "disorder," when of
course, the reverse is true.
Here, now is proof of the theory:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/23/health/policy/23drug.html
None of their "medicine" is real.
All the monographs say, "We don't know
how this drug works."
Yale's Tom McGlashan:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/23/health/psychology/23prof.html
"We have no idea what we're doing."
On diagnosing their own scientific
and moral incompetence:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/01/science/01tier.html
"But as useful as hypocrisy can be, it’s apparently not quite as basic
as the human instinct to do unto others as you would have them do unto
you. Your mind can justify double standards, it seems, but in your
heart you know you’re wrong."
See, what you do, is run all the data
together:
No drugs (If there is a drug, there must
be a disease, right? But now we know there
are no drugs, so there is no disease.)
And confused redundant doctrines
that are all canceled out by real
science.
Here, below, they clearly can't see
that no one among them could possibly
be one among them, if they reject
the brainwashed (unscientific) dogma.
So, these psychologists want to consider
allowing "Diversity" among them.
Hilarious.
That's like hiring a general for the
Army who wants to donate non-GMO
seeds and build desalination plants
and irrigation systems for Iraq.
That's like Lockheed-Martin wanting
a contract for building solar panel
arrays in Africa...
The psychiatrist Michael A. Schwartz
was abused by Allen Steere, so he
decided to form a group called AAPP,
the Association for the Advancement
of Philosophy and Psychiatry
http://www.actionlyme.org/AAPP.htm
but it ended up to be ALL ABOUT HIM
and we never heard from him again.
KMDickson
http://www.actionlyme.org
============================================
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/08/science/08tier.html?hpw=&pagewanted=print
February 7, 2011
Social Scientist Sees Bias Within
By JOHN TIERNEY
Correction Appended
SAN ANTONIO — Some of the world’s pre-eminent experts on bias
discovered an unexpected form of it at their annual meeting.
Discrimination is always high on the agenda at the Society for
Personality and Social Psychology’s conference, where psychologists
discuss their research on racial prejudice, homophobia, sexism,
stereotype threat and unconscious bias against minorities. But the
most talked-about speech at this year’s meeting, which ended Jan. 30,
involved a new “outgroup.”
It was identified by Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist at the
University of Virginia who studies the intuitive foundations of
morality and ideology. He polled his audience at the San Antonio
Convention Center, starting by asking how many considered themselves
politically liberal. A sea of hands appeared, and Dr. Haidt estimated
that liberals made up 80 percent of the 1,000 psychologists in the
ballroom. When he asked for centrists and libertarians, he spotted
fewer than three dozen hands. And then, when he asked for
conservatives, he counted a grand total of three.
“This is a statistically impossible lack of diversity,” Dr. Haidt
concluded, noting polls showing that 40 percent of Americans are
conservative and 20 percent are liberal. In his speech and in an
interview, Dr. Haidt argued that social psychologists are a “tribal-
moral community” united by “sacred values” that hinder research and
damage their credibility — and blind them to the hostile climate
they’ve created for non-liberals.
“Anywhere in the world that social psychologists see women or
minorities underrepresented by a factor of two or three, our minds
jump to discrimination as the explanation,” said Dr. Haidt, who called
himself a longtime liberal turned centrist. “But when we find out that
conservatives are underrepresented among us by a factor of more than
100, suddenly everyone finds it quite easy to generate alternate
explanations.”
Dr. Haidt (pronounced height) told the audience that he had been
corresponding with a couple of non-liberal graduate students in social
psychology whose experiences reminded him of closeted gay students in
the 1980s. He quoted — anonymously — from their e-mails describing how
they hid their feelings when colleagues made political small talk and
jokes predicated on the assumption that everyone was a liberal.
“I consider myself very middle-of-the-road politically: a social
liberal but fiscal conservative. Nonetheless, I avoid the topic of
politics around work,” one student wrote. “Given what I’ve read of the
literature, I am certain any research I conducted in political
psychology would provide contrary findings and, therefore, go
unpublished. Although I think I could make a substantial contribution
to the knowledge base, and would be excited to do so, I will not.”
The politics of the professoriate has been studied by the economists
Christopher Cardiff and Daniel Klein and the sociologists Neil Gross
and Solon Simmons. They’ve independently found that Democrats
typically outnumber Republicans at elite universities by at least six
to one among the general faculty, and by higher ratios in the
humanities and social sciences. In a 2007 study of both elite and non-
elite universities, Dr. Gross and Dr. Simmons reported that nearly 80
percent of psychology professors are Democrats, outnumbering
Republicans by nearly 12 to 1.
The fields of psychology, sociology and anthropology have long
attracted liberals, but they became more exclusive after the 1960s,
according to Dr. Haidt. “The fight for civil rights and against racism
became the sacred cause unifying the left throughout American society,
and within the academy,” he said, arguing that this shared morality
both “binds and blinds.”
“If a group circles around sacred values, they will evolve into a
tribal-moral community,” he said. “They’ll embrace science whenever it
supports their sacred values, but they’ll ditch it or distort it as
soon as it threatens a sacred value.” It’s easy for social scientists
to observe this process in other communities, like the fundamentalist
Christians who embrace “intelligent design” while rejecting Darwinism.
But academics can be selective, too, as Daniel Patrick Moynihan found
in 1965 when he warned about the rise of unmarried parenthood and
welfare dependency among blacks — violating the taboo against
criticizing victims of racism.
“Moynihan was shunned by many of his colleagues at Harvard as racist,”
Dr. Haidt said. “Open-minded inquiry into the problems of the black
family was shut down for decades, precisely the decades in which it
was most urgently needed. Only in the last few years have liberal
sociologists begun to acknowledge that Moynihan was right all along.”
Similarly, Larry Summers, then president of Harvard, was ostracized in
2005 for wondering publicly whether the preponderance of male
professors in some top math and science departments might be due
partly to the larger variance in I.Q. scores among men (meaning there
are more men at the very high and very low ends). “This was not a
permissible hypothesis,” Dr. Haidt said. “It blamed the victims rather
than the powerful. The outrage ultimately led to his resignation. We
psychologists should have been outraged by the outrage. We should have
defended his right to think freely.”
Instead, the taboo against discussing sex differences was reinforced,
so universities and the National Science Foundation went on spending
tens of millions of dollars on research and programs based on the
assumption that female scientists faced discrimination and various
forms of unconscious bias. But that assumption has been repeatedly
contradicted, most recently in a study published Monday in the
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by two Cornell
psychologists, Stephen J. Ceci and Wendy M. Williams. After reviewing
two decades of research, they report that a woman in academic science
typically fares as well as, if not better than, a comparable man when
it comes to being interviewed, hired, promoted, financed and
published.
“Thus,” they conclude, “the ongoing focus on sex discrimination in
reviewing, interviewing and hiring represents costly, misplaced
effort. Society is engaged in the present in solving problems of the
past.” Instead of presuming discrimination in science or expecting the
sexes to show equal interest in every discipline, the Cornell
researchers say, universities should make it easier for women in any
field to combine scholarship with family responsibilities.
Can social scientists open up to outsiders’ ideas? Dr. Haidt was
optimistic enough to title his speech “The Bright Future of Post-
Partisan Social Psychology,” urging his colleagues to focus on shared
science rather than shared moral values. To overcome taboos, he
advised them to subscribe to National Review and to read Thomas
Sowell’s “A Conflict of Visions.”
For a tribal-moral community, the social psychologists in Dr. Haidt’s
audience seemed refreshingly receptive to his argument. Some said he
overstated how liberal the field is, but many agreed it should welcome
more ideological diversity. A few even endorsed his call for a new
affirmative-action goal: a membership that’s 10 percent conservative
by 2020. The society’s executive committee didn’t endorse Dr. Haidt’s
numerical goal, but it did vote to put a statement on the group’s home
page welcoming psychologists with “diverse perspectives.” It also made
a change on the “Diversity Initiatives” page — a two-letter correction
of what it called a grammatical glitch, although others might see it
as more of a Freudian slip.
In the old version, the society announced that special funds to pay
for travel to the annual meeting were available to students belonging
to “underrepresented groups (i.e., ethnic or racial minorities, first-
generation college students, individuals with a physical disability,
and/or lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgendered students).”
As Dr. Haidt noted in his speech, the “i.e.” implied that this was the
exclusive, sacred list of “underrepresented groups.” The society took
his suggestion to substitute “e.g.” — a change that leaves it open to
other groups, too. Maybe, someday, even to conservatives.
Correction: February 7, 2011
An earlier version of this article omitted the name of a scientist who
conducted a study published Monday in the Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences. She is Wendy M. Williams.
KMDickson