APA Rant
Pogo Possum, Ph.D.
those psychologists who write to her about the unfairness of her
comments are really a bunch of cowards because they do not speak out
about what is happening within their own professional organization.
However, she leaves no room for disagreement about what IS happening
within the APA.
First she reads an obviously conservative and very biased article, an
opinion piece, that ridicules the activities of the recent APA
conference. Selectively quoting from the schedule of talks (which
included hundreds of sessions, and selectively quoting the remarks of
speakers and individuals in the audience, the article makes it sound
like only trivia was discussed -- nowhere is the substance of the many
truly scientific talks described. By focusing selectively on a few
speakers expressing concerns with racism, sexism, and opportunities
for minorities within the profession, the article makes it appear that
these preoccupied the conference. In Proxmire-fashion, the author
ridiculed a few sessions that he obviously did not understand,
including one discussing the "tyranny of positive attitudes." Any
professional psychologist would understand that the speaker is not
denigrating such attitudes but expressing concern about what burdens
prescribing them for all might impose on people who find it difficult
to achieve positive attitudes. Silliest was the suggestion that Pete
Seeger was a Communist and that his appearance at the conference
indicates support for Marxism. (Seeger was recently given an honorary
degree at Harvard University and spoke at their commencement -- does
that make Harvard Communist too?) Painting a whole professional
organization with a giant red smear is hard work, so Dr. Laura must
help out by portraying the group as pedophilic too.
Dr. Laura took strongest issue with the article's description of the
program and one conference attendee's remarks about the movie American
Beauty. The man apparently referred to the "doubtful thoughts" of the
father toward the teenage friend of his daughter. Nowhere is it made
clear what the speaker meant by "doubtful thoughts" but the article's
author excerpts that phrase, reports it out of context, and interprets
it to mean that the father thought it was OK to have sex with the
young girl. Further evidence for this interpretation is provided by
the phrase "pedophile phobes" used in the program -- the article says
it says "Don't worry pedophile-phobes, this movie is no Lolita." As
anyone who has seen the movie knows, the father ultimately recognizes
the wrongness of his attraction to the teen and does not have sex with
her, despite his fantasies which are largely related to the poverty of
his life. There is no pedophilia in the movie -- there is an
illustration of restraint that Dr. Laura should applaud. Instead, she
claims that the entire APA with these remarks is minimizing pedophilia
and ridiculing those who are concerned about it. She does not
recognize, as any professional would, that the term "phobe" refers to
someone who has an irrational fear of something -- not a legitimate
fear. Indeed, thinking that American Beauty portrays pedophilia and
that the phrase "doubtful thoughts" condones pedophilia illustrates
this phobia pretty well. She and the author of the article seem to
find pedophilia where it does not exist -- in a movie that invites the
audience to clearly separate fantasy from reality and to change
reality instead of indulging in fantasy, just as the Kevin Spacey
character learns to do.
The author of this article repeats the incorrect statistic that
congress voted 355 to 0 to censure the Rind article. IIRC 13 people
voted "no" on that resolution. Perhaps they later changed their votes
for the congressional record -- but the original vote was not
unanimous. The recurrence of this 355 to 0 quote suggests to me that
these article writers are all getting their facts from a single
incorrect source.
Dr. Laura seems most upset that the attendees cheered Fowler for his
opposition to the "inquisition" by Congress and Dr. Laura -- something
she characterizes as a capitulation. She again mischaracterizes the
content of the Rind et al. article, saying "In my opinion that's the
interpretation." Then she interprets the cheering of the crowd to be
support for pedophilia. She expresses mock outrage that a term like
"inquisition" is used by people who are defending abuse of children.
And ends by saying "I told you so" in an ominous tone, though it is
far from clear what she thinks she told everyone.
What's wrong here is that she has the whole situation mixed up.
Psychologists cheered a belief that science should not be mixed with
politics or dictated by Congress, something the author of this article
should have been in sympathy with -- given his deriding of the
appearance of politics in a handful of the sessions. Their ridiculing
of Dr. Laura is a reaction to her abuse of psychological science, her
attacks on the organization, and her ongoing mischaracterization of
the findings of the field. It is no accident that Dr. Laura has
singled out for attack the very people most likely to see through her
misguided remarks -- she has few friends among psychologists and she
seems to know it in her call for her supporters to stop being such
cowards. Here's a clue Dr. Laura -- you don't have any friends out
there in the APA, silent or otherwise.
The people in the APA are not cowards. They have shown by their
recent actions at their convention exactly what they think of a
demagogue like Dr. Laura. They have shown that there are not going to
be intimidated by accusations of Communism or pedophilia or political
correctness, or hints at self-interest (the remark that newly elected
APA President DeLeon is on Inouye's staff -- as if that meant anything
sinister). As a member of the APA, I was encouraged to hear that my
colleagues are still willing to laugh out loud at Dr. Laura, despite
the silliness of the Congressional Vote last year.
schles...@my-deja.com
It's very shiny.
I think I'll go back and buy some earrings to go with it.
Dr. Laura Schlessinger, Ph.D., M.F.C.C.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.