The Psych Student

The Authoritarians by Bob Altemeyer’s is online in pdf format. It combines more than 30 years of research into authoritarianist regimes, doctrines and thier fans. I’m bookmarking it here because I’m both a fan of online publishing and interested in the topic, so am hoping to give it a look-see soon.

Boingboing says “It’s a fascinating explanation of how the minds of this subset of the population works- or in some cases, fails to: how they are able to assiduously apply double standards, fail to notice inconsistencies in their beliefs, justify abominable behavior, etc. Somehow, knowing that these people really, truly, can’t reason in the same way the majority of us can makes them a little less irksome, if not less frightening.”

I don’t know if I’d go that far, but some of Altemeyer’s research beckens a deeper look.

“The studies explain so much about these people. Yes, the research shows they are very aggressive, but why are they so hostile? Yes, experiments show they are almost totally uninfluenced by reasoning and evidence, but why are they so dogmatic? Yes, studies show the Religious Right has more than its fair share of hypocrites, from top to bottom; but why are they two-faced, and how come one face never notices the other? Yes, their leaders can give the flimsiest of excuses and even outright lies about things they’ve done wrong, but why do the rank-and-file believe them? What happens when authoritarian followers find the authoritarian leaders they crave and start marching together?” – Bob Altemeyer

"Three identities" by by jacobrendell via Flickr

This post looks at how social constructionist theory. Primarily it pulls from the Open University text, but I’ve also been reading up on some insider social constructionist criticism. I’ll admit at the outset that I’m biased in favor of the theory and think, as far as the main theories of identity formation go, it explains things the best. Primarily the section looked at psychosocial and social identity theories as well, but I found myself most taken with constuctionist arguments. This post also delves some into identity formation specifically among people with disabilities, which is what the Open University course material uses to provide examples and case studies.  The post may be a bit jumbled, and is basically a cobbling together of what I have in my notebook, something I plan to do in this blog from time to time.

While I do champion social constructionist theory here, it’s not without reservations. I have a problem with how untethered social constructionism is from the material world, and as a person leaning heavily toward evolutionary explanations for psychological phenomenon (though not entirely) I think that social constructionist theory contains rather gaping holes in need of filling. I’ve brought along on this journey a paper written by some social constructionist revisionists looking to fill that gap. Read the rest of this entry »

The case of Prof. David Nutt is important to all areas of science, as it asks some crucial questions about the socieity in which we live:  Is working with the government becoming CV stain? Will it ruin your reputation? Can anyone take you seriously after working with a government agency, or should you at least be looked at with some suspicion?

Bad times. The sacking of David Nutt over his accurate, verifiable ranking of dangerous drugs by Home Secretary Alan Johnson makes murky the role of scientific advisors in government systems where politics are more often all that matters. The ability for scientists to speak openly and honestly is under attack. David Nutt has done so before, and then it helped improved the lives of many in the UK dealing with depression. Perhaps he thought that may have bought him some credit. But political memory is short.

“An increasing number of psychiatrists followed the practice of evidence-based methods. They preferred truth – however inconvenient – to dearly held fantasies. Nice – the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence – now advises doctors to prescribe antidepressants only for severely depressed patients, while mildly, moderately and severely depressed patients should receive psychotherapy.” – Dorothy Rowe

Science has always had the bad end of its relationship with politics. In the 17th century Galileo was forced to renounce his work which suggested the sun as opposed to the earth, was at the center of things. In 1925 a high school teacher in Dayton, Tenn., named John Scopes was persecuted by religious fundementalists and the state alike for daring to teach evolution in a science class. This is the tradition the Home Secretary now follows by putting political careerism and pandering ahead of a careful consideration of fact and clear evidence.

Robert Sapolsky, professor of neurology, neurological sciences, neurosurgery and biological sciences, was selected to talk by the Stanford University graduating class.  His speech was a great way at showing how optimistic an outlook it is to embrace the fact that we’ve got very little not in common with most other animals, particularly our closest ape cousins, and how once we figure that out our specific niche we paradoxically face the challenge of pushing beyond it, which is the thing that makes us different.