From: Andrew Phelps <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Tue Aug 21 10:13 -0800
Subject: Re: [RadPsyNet-Members] Re: About 6 out of 500
On Tue Aug 21 17:43, you sent:
That many "smart people" in acedemia and clinical fields may have very little substance and grounding, and so on, means what? The same can be said of people who aren't so smart, aren't in academic or clinical fields.
The concern here I think has to do with the American Psychological Association and the institutional fabric of the social relation in question. The APA has been invested in [a] torture and [b] behavior management since the 1950s. The specifics of "psychologist behavior" are complex because of that contextual frame. Recently an organization "Withhold APA Dues" put forward a referendum which passed by 60% to ban psychologist involvement with torture. It wasn't implemented effectively. Today the APA has experienced "denial upgrade" and is promoting the "psychology of terrorism." Groups like Psychologists for Social Responsibility have taken up the challenge: That's an ongoing effort.
The situation regarding "behavior management" was taken up by Vygotsky and Luria in an earlier era, but the mainstream polity today is still based on the denial of social oppression of "mental patients."
One good book to examine is State of Confusion by Bryant Welch. Bryant was the first E.D. of the APA "Practice Organization," and he concluded that the prevailing "practice" arrangement and ideation did not meet the "healing" standard. He "defected," and wrote about the meaning of the inner politics of the APA.
Does that help you some?
ABO "Andrew Behavior Object"