
Why I Am Not a Member of the American Psychological Association - pmoriarty
http://www.chalquist.com/apa.html
======
Tloewald
Educational. But I wonder how many US scientific bodies could be just as
easily vivisected. E.g. I'm sure Physics, for example, is full of people with
connections to defense, and we know that lots of top Mathematicians have
worked for the NSA.

It does remind me of a story on NPR (about a book --
[http://www.amazon.com/Harvard-Unabomber-Education-
American-T...](http://www.amazon.com/Harvard-Unabomber-Education-American-
Terrorist/dp/0393020029)) detailing how a prominent psychology professor
basically tortured a group of students over a period of years, concentrating
special intensity for an awkward scholarship student, Theodore Kaczynski.

~~~
pmoriarty
_" I'm sure Physics, for example, is full of people with connections to
defense, and we know that lots of top Mathematicians have worked for the
NSA."_

Not to mention the strong historical Silicon Valley links to the "defense",
prison, law-enforcement and intelligence industries.

One also has to ask what weight should be given to indirect cooperation with
and enablement of said industries. If one is not working for a defense
contractor, but a supplier of said contractor, or if one even takes money from
or in any way benefits from these contractors or contractors of contractors,
what's your culpability? Where do you draw the line?

I am also reminded of "IBM and the Holocaust",[1] which is deserving of its
own HN article.

[1] -
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust)

------
dredmorbius
First, the history of the practice of psychology, and the ills it's transacted
against humanity, is exceptionally telling.

The nugget though is buried in the tail of the piece:

 _Craig Chalquist, PhD is a member of Psychologists for Social
Responsibility._

That is: there _is_ an alternate organization.

More on PsySR here: [http://psysr.org/](http://psysr.org/)

That said, the more the public knows about the list of terribles here, and
Edward Bernays in particular, the better.

I also very strongly recommend reading the works of Jerry Mander, an
economics-trained advertising executive who paired up with Sierra Club
organizer (and president) David Brower to create some of the first
environmental advertising and outreach campaigns, co-founded Friends of the
Earth (backed by ARCO CEO Robert O Anderson, ponder that), and has written a
couple of highly worthwhile books, _Four Arguments for the Elimination of
Television_ and _The Capitalism Papers_.

[http://www.powells.com/biblio/2-9780688082741-13](http://www.powells.com/biblio/2-9780688082741-13)

[http://www.powells.com/biblio/17-9781619021587-0](http://www.powells.com/biblio/17-9781619021587-0)

------
tokenadult
As other comments have mentioned, if you criticize an organization by choosing
bad actors who are members of that organization to criticize the whole
organization, few organizations come out looking good. On my part, I'd like to
hear more discussion of the Association for Psychological Science (APS),[1] an
organization formed as a conscious effort to introduce more sound science into
the practice of psychology.

The articled submitted here is from 2013 (excerpted from a 2013 publication,
but posted on a website with a 2010 copyright notice). He tries to sum up the
history of a large organization more than a century old with a few anecdotes.
I wonder how the author, whose website[2] has links to some more recent
writings, prioritizes his critique of the American Psychological Association
now. (And by the way, what do you fellow participants here on Hacker News
think of the author's website, from which the kind submission here was
linked?)

[1]
[http://www.psychologicalscience.org/](http://www.psychologicalscience.org/)

[2] [http://www.chalquist.com/](http://www.chalquist.com/)

~~~
lutusp
> As other comments have mentioned, if you criticize an organization by
> choosing bad actors who are members of that organization to criticize the
> whole organization, few organizations come out looking good.

Yes, that's certainly true. But there's one important difference between the
APA and scientific organizations -- scientific organizations can be shamed
into following the evidence.

In psychology, if there's no theory to suit your fancy, you can invent one and
gain a following, and your theory doesn't have to pass a reality test or forge
a consensus -- indeed, psychology is overflowing with theories in open
conflict. Here's an example: those who have very narrow personal focus and/or
a lack of interest in relationships, might be described as having (a) Asperger
Syndrome, or (b) Grit.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grit_(personality_trait)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grit_\(personality_trait\))

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperger_syndrome](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperger_syndrome)

For those who claim the described symptoms prove Asperger's, there has been
much recent controversial activity asserting that it's a condition on the
Autism spectrum. For those who claim the symptoms prove a person possesses
Grit, there are now movements to empower and offer therapy to intensify this
trait. But there's no effort to compare these views either to each other or to
reality.

The described symptoms might represent a treatable mental illness, as the
Asperger's advocates assert -- no one knows. They might represent a natural
gift, one possessed by many successful people, and might even represent a
positive evolutionary adaptation to a changing environment. No one can
persuasively argue that view either, for lack of solid evidence, for lack of
anything resembling science.

Bill Gates probably possesses Grit, and certainly has an Asperger's diagnosis
-- assigned by someone who never interviewed him. Albert Einstein, the same.
Thomas Jefferson. Many others -- all members of _both_ these opposing schools
of thought.

In physics, Lee Smolin can criticize string theory
([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trouble_with_Physics](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trouble_with_Physics))
for (in effect) not really being a theory on the ground that it's untestable,
and his views are widely read by people who don't see this as a challenge to
physics -- quite the opposite. In psychology, critics have a much more
difficult time because nothing is either demonstrably true or false. This is
why two sequential chairs of the NIMH (Steve Hyman and Thomas Insel) have
criticized their own profession's disregard for science, only to be (so far)
shouted down by vested interests within the field.

The defense offered by the field's defenders can be concisely summarized -- no
one really knows how science is defined, therefore one cannot persuasively
describe something as unscientific. Shockingly, this is a view widely held
among mental health workers. But this isn't a tenable view among physicists
and other workers in scientific fields, who find that science's definition is
very clear.

~~~
lutusp
Some HN readers wonder why people don't simply demolish my psychology posts
using evidence, instead of anonymously downvoting them (the preferred
approach). The answer is simple: they can't -- the evidence is overwhelming
that psychology is not a scientific enterprise. It's a matter of choosing
which piece of evidence to present on a given day, from a wide array of
possibilities.

~~~
dllthomas
There have been many threads where people have gone back and forth with you at
length. "They're bitter and can't think of a valid response" is one
possibility, but "they can't be bothered to launch into the same long
conversation in response to basically the same comment" is another. It's bad
form to simply declare that it's the former.

For the record, I'm not entirely unsympathetic to your position though I think
some of your arguments are not well founded, and I downvoted this comment and
its parent.

~~~
lutusp
> but "they can't be bothered to launch into the same long conversation in
> response to basically the same comment" is another.

Several have tried to do just that, saying, for example, that I am wrong and
that voting constitutes science, or that control groups aren't essential to
serious human studies. While simultaneously downvoting, of course.

> For the record, I'm not entirely unsympathetic to your position though I
> think some of your arguments are not well founded, and I downvoted this
> comment and its parent.

You are aware, are you not, that your being in disagreement with a legitimate
viewpoint is not a valid reason to downvote, yes? That a post should
contribute nothing to the conversation, or otherwise be egregiously at fault
to deserve that remedy?

As to my views being "not well founded", if that were true, because I state my
views so clearly it should be possible -- not to say easy -- to persuasively
argue against them, demolish them with logic, by taking the high road. No one
can do that, and no one has done that.

[http://arachnoid.com/science_of_mind](http://arachnoid.com/science_of_mind)

~~~
dllthomas
Sorry, very important typo - I downvoted the comment I replied to, and _not_
its parent. Perhaps someone with access (dang?) could confirm that, if there's
any doubt.

 _" While simultaneously downvoting, of course."_

You have no way of knowing that it was the same people.

 _" You are aware, are you not, that your being in disagreement with a
legitimate viewpoint is not a valid reason to downvote, yes? That a post
should contribute nothing to the conversation, or otherwise be egregiously at
fault to deserve that remedy?"_

I am aware. It is not crazy to believe that comments repeating the same points
over and over are contributing nothing to the conversation. That said, as I
mentioned above, I downvoted only the comment ranting about downvotes.

 _" No one can do that, and no one has done that."_

I believe I have done so in more than one instance; you ignore the points I
make, accuse me of supporting positions expressed by others, demolish _those_
points (often effectively, sometimes relying on other bad reasoning), and
declare victory. If you'd actually engage intellectually rather than
rhetorically, it would be a more productive experience for everyone. As is,
it's exhausting and unproductive, and has no bearing on the accuracy of either
position - which is frustrating, because I would like to know if I'm wrong.

------
SoftwareMaven
After spending the last couple of years really diving deep into nutrition
science[1] to save my own health, I've come to believe the almost every three-
or four-letter organization has little to do with its stated purpose and much
more to do with feeding itself and ensuring its own propagation, no matter how
it has to do it (see, for instance, the American Association of Nutritionists
and Dietetics' (AAND) relationship with CocaCola and PepsiCo or the American
Diabetes Association's (ADA) relationship with AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, and
Janssen Pharmaceuticals)[2]. Regulatory capture, as mentioned in TFA, is a
popular method to protect the association.

In a previous age, these organizations played an important role in
disseminating curated information to its members, with the assumption that it
was curated for maximum benefit to those who would ultimately be treated.
Today, the Internet has shown that the curation may not be as completely
benevolent as we would have hoped as corporate interests subtly and not-so-
subtley influence what gets propagated.

Unfortunately, it is difficult, if not impossible, to "fix" a heavily
entrenched bureaucracy. Instead, I think the best we can hope for it to make
them inconsequential. Fortunately, we now have the ability to do this, because
we now have the raw information available with just a few clicks. In effect,
the wisdom of crowds can overcome the edicts of the anointed[3].

The author of this article is taking a stand, saying that the TLA[4]
associated with his field does not represent psychology as he sees it. I think
this is a wonderful step, and I would trust him more as a psychologist as a
result[5]. As more professionals eschew their self-serving organizations,
health care will get better, because those that step away inevitably do so
recognizing they have to become the curators of their own knowledge.

So when you hear a health care provider is not a member of an organization you
would expect them to be, instead of immediately considering it a black mark on
their score card, take some time to learn why. You may find they are a better
provider for it.

1\. Sometimes, it is really hard to use the word nutrition and science
together. There is some, but most of it is complete garbage compiled at
incredible cost.

2\. Sponsorship alone is not a problem, but it's a _very_ dangerous line to
walk. Sponsorship that conflicts with the core values of your organization is
always a problem. Ask yourself: how strongly would the ADA be pushing for a
true cure for diabetes, knowing 1) it would stop having a reason to exist and
2) its major sponsors would take a massive hit in profits? Is it surprising
"managing" is the new word for how we treat illnesses?

3\.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzPnnDDCIjo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzPnnDDCIjo)

4\. "Three letter acronym"

5\. Stepping away is not the only option. There is, for example, a strong
group (Dietitians for Professional Integrity) working to change the AAND
internally. I hope they succeed.
[http://integritydietitians.org/](http://integritydietitians.org/)

~~~
api
TL;DR: he who pays the piper calls the tune.

I am not convinced that the world of "organic" and "natural" is any better. A
lot of that stuff is about using fear mongering to create a manufactured and
scientifically baseless division between a higher priced tier of food for
yuppies and a lower priced tier for the riff raff. I've heard it called "food
gentrification." It's all about market segmentation and charging more to those
who can be propagandized into paying it. Bernays would be proud.

Eco-ideology is also used heavily to prevent the construction of new housing
and infrastructure to artificially limit supply to the benefit of banks and
existing property owners.

My level of trust in pretty much _any_ letter agency or social/political
movement is low across the board. Nearly anything with a soapbox seems to be a
front for something that reduces to political propaganda or wallet emptying.
Right or left, religious or secular, green or whatever, it doesn't seem to
matter. Nothing is true; everything is an advertisement.

IMHO we live in a world where the law is do your own primary research or be
exploited. No exceptions. I am not sure if it was ever different or if people
are just becoming more aware.

~~~
pmoriarty
_" Nearly anything with a soapbox seems to be a front for something that
reduces to political propaganda or wallet emptying. Right or left, religious
or secular, green or whatever, it doesn't seem to matter. Nothing is true;
everything is an advertisement."_

This seems to be an incredibly disempowering perspective.

~~~
api
I don't see it that way. I see it as a simple recognition of a reality and a
call to engage in primary research and reasoning from first principles.

It is herds and movements that are disempowering.

It's still possible to organize too. People should organize on concrete issues
and leave the ideology (levers for mass manipulation) at the door. That way
it's a lot harder to leverage group identity signifiers and mythological
elements to manipulate large numbers of people while masking ones real agenda.
For example, we might create an agency whose goal is to reduce CO2 emissions.
That's it. No other bandwagons are implied.

Don't get me wrong. I _do_ see the universality of manipulation as a serious
social pathology. I just don't know what to do about it in a world where
people have to get paid. Seems to me that if money is required to make things
happen, only things that are motivated by money or that serve the agendas of
those with it will happen.

~~~
pmoriarty
_" It is herds and movements that are disempowering."_

The Civil Rights movement.

The labor movement.

The environmental movement.

The suffragette movement.

The abolitionist movement.

The free speech movement.

The list can go on and on.

Whatever else you could say about these movements, agree or disagree with
their aims or effects, its difficult to give credence to the view that they
weren't effective or empowering to their members or that their goals could
have been achieved without organization.

~~~
lutusp
>> "It is herds and movements that are disempowering."

> The Civil Rights movement.

> The labor movement.

> The environmental movement.

> The suffragette movement.

> The abolitionist movement.

> The free speech movement.

> The list can go on and on.

Indeed it does, and some will argue that, with some noteworthy exceptions,
your list, and other similar lists, proves the point being made by the OP.
Most public movements only postpone what they protest against -- the labor
movement stands as a classic case.

> Whatever else you could say about these movements, agree or disagree with
> their aims or effects, its difficult to give credence to the view that they
> weren't effective or empowering to their members or that their goals could
> have been achieved without organization.

From a scientific standpoint, we cannot say whether these movements were
causes or effects. By the time people were rightly condemning slave ownership
on any scale in the U.S., Great Britain had abandoned slavery decades before,
and many civilized people in the U.S. and elsewhere saw slavery's abandonment
as inevitable.

As to the labor movement, historically it described an arc between
ineffectiveness and corruption -- between a promise of a solution, to becoming
a bigger problem than the issue it claimed to address.

As to free speech -- well, I see this as a classic example of modern
government's basic strategy, which is to find out what people are going to do
anyway, order them to do it, then try to take credit for the outcome.

~~~
maxxxxx
I don't think it's right to doubt that these movements at least accelerated
improvements.

I am sure the South would happily have held slaves for much longer than it
did. I remember when I was a kid car manufacturers claimed they would go
bankrupt if they had to install catalytic filters. Only the pressure from the
environmental movement build up the momentum for requiring those filters.
Without the labor movement we would probably still work 12 hours six days a
week.

~~~
pmoriarty
_" Without the labor movement we would probably still work 12 hours six days a
week."_

Unfortunately, many in the technology field still do, and worse. Many on this
very forum advocate working much longer hours in their attempts to get rich
quick through the startup lottery.

At the same time, they rabidly belittle unions, membership in which would
probably be the only thing short of becoming an independent consultant that
could allow them to work relatively sane hours.

