Pslf proposed elimination

[NeuropsychAJ]

"Addressing your point 3, which is more about my posts than foreverbull - I in no way said that minorities are better at treating minorities. I said that people without those social backgrounds are made better at treating people with them when they have the benefit of the people with the backgrounds' experience in the following manner: the experience of racism, sexism, and poverty lead to both research and professional discourse that help majority providers to understand concepts like racism and locus of control. It takes the background to know what questions to research. Boiling down what I said to "minorities are better at treating minorities" misses the whole point."

I would probably agree with your point that great research on racism etc has been done by minority/female researchers, and that this research is needed... I also think diversity in our field could be a really good thing. I just don't know if PSLF is the best way to facilitate this. I've heard of programs where grad students mentor junior/senior undergrads from less privileged backgrounds and attempt to match them up with research labs and provide them with advice on what they need to do to make themselves competitive for elusive funded PhD spots. More of those initiatives seem like more productive ways to improve diversity in our field, IMO.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Pragma]

Well, I am not sure any of this will happen anyways (who knows), but I would be surprised if they did not grandfather people engaged in this program because it pretty explicitly advised people to pay as little money as possible and let the interest compound so that they would maximize the benefit. There would probably be some form of class action lawsuit.

A side note - I'm not very familiar with the budgeting for these types of programs, but my understanding was that this might be partially funded by the revenue generated by the increased interest rates. Loan interest is a money maker for the government - at some point it will no longer be when enough people start defaulting on loans, but I read an article awhile back that had shown how much revenue that is generated by student loans - it is a cash cow for the feds. So, if anyone knows more about this, please enlighten me - I am not sure it is entirely accurate for people to say things like "I don't want to fund someone's terrible life choices" when it is not clear to me where the money is coming from (taxpayers vs. revenue generated by taxpayer-backed loans).

 

[WisNeuro]

Well, I am not sure any of this will happen anyways (who knows), but I would be surprised if they did not grandfather people engaged in this program because it pretty explicitly advised people to pay as little money as possible and let the interest compound so that they would maximize the benefit. There would probably be some form of class action lawsuit.

A side note - I'm not very familiar with the budgeting for these types of programs, but my understanding was that this might be partially funded by the revenue generated by the increased interest rates. Loan interest is a money maker for the government - at some point it will no longer be when enough people start defaulting on loans, but I read an article awhile back that had shown how much revenue that is generated by student loans - it is a cash cow for the feds. So, if anyone knows more about this, please enlighten me - I am not sure it is entirely accurate for people to say things like "I don't want to fund someone's terrible life choices" when it is not clear to me where the money is coming from (taxpayers vs. revenue generated by taxpayer-backed loans).

Depends in which estimation model is used to calculate the figures. One says that the government makes money, one (Fair-value accounting, which the CBO uses) says that once you take in to account market risk and defaulters, the govt (i.e., taxpayers) lose money and foot the bill. Also, this is looking at loans that are fully paid back. If we run the numbers on programs that forgive large levels of debt, the numbers will be much worse for the balance sheets. One thing we can say for certain is that the diploma mills make out like bandits in this scenario, no matter which estimation model is used.

 

[PsyDr]

Establishing intellectual superiority is not what I'm here for, and if there are psychologists/grad students here for that purpose, it would answer my original question.

I'm simply asking for reflection on the kind of climate that can be created in this community. Whether or not you believe there is a culture of elitism in these forums, if looking for facts to your standards, I challenge you to peruse the threads carefully and look for the things I mentioned (as well as rebuttals that use the word "ridiculous," etc.). I would hope that people in here would be open-minded enough to consider how their words might sound to others from different backgrounds and with completely different views and experiences. Psychologists are trained to develop awareness of underlying themes that pervade an environment (i.e. things like microaggressions as subtle racism, group therapy dynamics, body language, etc.), and we know better than to play naive. To be fair, I can and should also look into how my words affect others as well (as you mentioned) and how I can sometimes perpetuate elitism. I would hope others who have been trained in this field would be willing to do the same.

I think you misunderstood my point. Perhaps I did not explain my viewpoint well enough.

I am specifically referring to debate, when I use the term "intellectual superiority". I am not referring to seeking narcissistic concerns.

IMO, it's harder to get into a funded Ph.D. program. Ph.D. graduates tend to have an easier time getting jobs in traditional institutional jobs. If that is what someone wants for their career, then they absolutely should be proud of such an accomplishment. I don't know if that's elitism or not.

PsyDs are always going to have a lower stance in the field. Trying to tear others down to get the same respect doesn't tend to work out. Elevating our own behaviors, while unfair, ends up resulting in respect.

But, there are MANY other factors than degree in one's career. There are psychologists who benefit society and/or themselves in innumerable other ways. If you look at the "old guard" there are a not inconsequential percent of psyds. And each one of the old guard pursue their own things. Jon Snow likes research and reportedly does a lot of it. Erg loves his family and focuses on that. Smalltown likes the boonies. AA, pragma, wisneuro, all pursue different things. MCparent pursues the avoidance of pants. Every single one of them believe that their pursuit is "better" than others, because for them it is. Any of these people could tell me that they did better than me in X part of the field and they would absolutely be right. But some have also specifically told me that they aren't interested in what I do. Is that elitist? I don't know.

You have an opinion, and that's fine. When having a professional debate, there are two general ways to win:

1) Backing your position up with research.
2) Maintaining a professional stance while admitting the limitations of your position and being fair to the opposition.

In general, when someone gets upset in professional discourse or applies a double standard, it tends to limit their credibility.

I do think you have a point. And I do think that it is probably difficult to defend someone calling you names. But when you reply in kind, it destroys your point.

If you call me a doodoo head, I call you a poop face, we both look like children who need a shower at best. If someone calls you a doodoo head and you artfully explain your side with reason and logic, the name caller ends up destroying his/her own credibility for you.

 

[MCParent]

MCparent pursues the avoidance of pants.

You don't know how right you are.

Good post! Agreed.

 

[WisNeuro]

You don't know how right you are.

Good post! Agreed.

MCPantsless?

 

[deleted106747]

"Addressing your point 3, which is more about my posts than foreverbull - I in no way said that minorities are better at treating minorities. I said that people without those social backgrounds are made better at treating people with them when they have the benefit of the people with the backgrounds' experience in the following manner: the experience of racism, sexism, and poverty lead to both research and professional discourse that help majority providers to understand concepts like racism and locus of control. It takes the background to know what questions to research. Boiling down what I said to "minorities are better at treating minorities" misses the whole point."

I would probably agree with your point that great research on racism etc has been done by minority/female researchers, and that this research is needed... I also think diversity in our field could be a really good thing. I just don't know if PSLF is the best way to facilitate this. I've heard of programs where grad students mentor junior/senior undergrads from less privileged backgrounds and attempt to match them up with research labs and provide them with advice on what they need to do to make themselves competitive for elusive funded PhD spots. More of those initiatives seem like more productive ways to improve diversity in our field, IMO.

I would like t0 see more of those initiatives, and I think that interventions need to happen at a very early stage. Like preschool early. I don't know if that will ever happen, but a psychologist can dream.

 

[calimich]

A growing body of literature exists regarding the broad topic of educational (and psychosocial) benefits of racial and ethnic heterogeneity. Here are a selection of studies encompassing middle schoolers, undergraduates, D-I athletes, and medical students:

Whitla, D., Orfield, G., Silen, W., Teperow, C., Howard, C., & Reede, J. (2003). Educational benefits of diversity in medical school: A survey of students. Academic Medicine, 78(5), 460-466.

Saha, S., Guiton, G., Wimmers, P., & Wilkerson, L. (2008). Student body racial and ethnic composition and diversity-related outcomes in US medical schools. Jama-Journal Of The American Medical Association, 300(10), 1135-1145.

Denson, N., & Chang, M. J. (2009). Racial diversity matters: The impact of diversity-related student engagement and institutional context. American Educational Research Journal, 46(2), 322-353.

Graham, S., Munniksma, A., & Juvonen, J. (2014). Psychosocial Benefits of Cross-Ethnic Friendships in Urban Middle Schools. Child Development, 85(2), 469-483.

Comeaux, E. (2013). The Long-Term Benefits of Cross-Racial Engagement on Workforce Competencies for Division I White Student-Athletes. Journal Of Student Affairs Research And Practice, 50(1), 37-55.

Within counseling and therapy, a common way of investigating "the diversity question" is to look at client-therapist ethnic match. Although studies have typically yielded mixed results, (i.e., ethnic match does not always equal better client outcome), I can't recall any that show worse outcomes when there is an ethnic match. However, imo, conclusions from the larger body of literature trump (no pun intended) the more narrow, inconclusive findings.

Racial and ethnic diversity is good for cognitive and social development.

 

[calimich]

I would like t0 see more of those initiatives, and I think that interventions need to happen at a very early stage. Like preschool early. I don't know if that will ever happen, but a psychologist can dream.

We also have good evidence this works! See: Perry Preschool Project

 

[foreverbull]

I think you misunderstood my point. Perhaps I did not explain my viewpoint well enough.

I am specifically referring to debate, when I use the term "intellectual superiority". I am not referring to seeking narcissistic concerns.

IMO, it's harder to get into a funded Ph.D. program. Ph.D. graduates tend to have an easier time getting jobs in traditional institutional jobs. If that is what someone wants for their career, then they absolutely should be proud of such an accomplishment. I don't know if that's elitism or not.

PsyDs are always going to have a lower stance in the field. Trying to tear others down to get the same respect doesn't tend to work out. Elevating our own behaviors, while unfair, ends up resulting in respect.

But, there are MANY other factors than degree in one's career. There are psychologists who benefit society and/or themselves in innumerable other ways. If you look at the "old guard" there are a not inconsequential percent of psyds. And each one of the old guard pursue their own things. Jon Snow likes research and reportedly does a lot of it. Erg loves his family and focuses on that. Smalltown likes the boonies. AA, pragma, wisneuro, all pursue different things. MCparent pursues the avoidance of pants. Every single one of them believe that their pursuit is "better" than others, because for them it is. Any of these people could tell me that they did better than me in X part of the field and they would absolutely be right. But some have also specifically told me that they aren't interested in what I do. Is that elitist? I don't know.

You have an opinion, and that's fine. When having a professional debate, there are two general ways to win:

1) Backing your position up with research.
2) Maintaining a professional stance while admitting the limitations of your position and being fair to the opposition.

In general, when someone gets upset in professional discourse or applies a double standard, it tends to limit their credibility.

I do think you have a point. And I do think that it is probably difficult to defend someone calling you names. But when you reply in kind, it destroys your point.

If you call me a doodoo head, I call you a poop face, we both look like children who need a shower at best. If someone calls you a doodoo head and you artfully explain your side with reason and logic, the name caller ends up destroying his/her own credibility for you.

You are free to have your opinion, of course. And I knew that you didn't mean overall superiority, it was just an interesting choice of words in a discussion about elitism. But I believe you've mostly restated your point, while my most recent post was an attempt to move beyond the particulars of debate effectiveness itself and get at the core issue, in which I specifically said, I should look into my own words and how they affect others, and hoping that others (including you) would do the same. I already did address your 2nd bullet point (I noted that I should be aware of my words as well, as in being cautious about my language use). I'm pretty sure I also used inclusive language to involve myself in the self-reflection to purposefully not point fingers and create division.

I'm not sure why this continues to be a dialogue about how to debate more effectively, and this is a good lesson in how meaningful dialogue can get lost in the rabbit hole of debate tactics and semantics. This bears repeating:

I'm simply asking for reflection on the kind of climate that can be created in this community.

There's a difference between pride in oneself and the need to elevate oneself by creating an "other" to be below you (not you individually). I believe we can take pride in our achievements without losing our humanity by (even if unintentionally) putting down another group or using strong language (i.e "ridiculous," etc.) when making our points so as to communicate indirectly that others who hold a different opinion are stupid, less than, etc. Now rest assured, I'm not saying it's directly said, but implied (if my point of view is ridiculous by your standards, then by default, yours is not ridiculous and is better). Elitism seems to be a particularly charged word in here.

It takes open minds, not reactionary language and diversion by focusing on minute details to out-argue another person rather than address the core issue..... and please, let's check our privilege before responding in this forum. Myself included.

 

[MCParent]

Within counseling and therapy, a common way of investigating "the diversity question" is to look at client-therapist ethnic match. Although studies have typically yielded mixed results, (i.e., ethnic match does not always equal better client outcome), I can't recall any that show worse outcomes when there is an ethnic match. However, imo, conclusions from the larger body of literature trump (no pun intended) the more narrow, inconclusive findings.

This body of research is a good example of how this line of thinking can go haywire. In many of these studies, they just throw people of the same or different race at each other and hypothesize that the "matches" will do better. Typically, no attention is given to other factors, and no attention is given to the possibility that racial/ethnic minority persons could very well be racist, or that "non-matched" dyads may actually be very similar on other aspects of identity. It really feels like an "us vs them" approach to diversity.

 

[psyd2020]

wait, Trump is proposing free education?! I'm lost..

 

[smalltownpsych]

I completely agree that having people with various backgrounds in our field is a good thing. When I was hiring psychotherapists I wanted a diverse bunch as that helped ensure that we could provide a broader range of services. This included various degrees, backgrounds, mix of genders, and ethnicities. I'm not sure why it would not be a good thing to have a wider selection or if anybody really disagrees with that point. How to implement that is a very debatable point. A challeneg is that people from culturally disadvantaged circumstances are going to be at a disadvantage, but we want the best and the brightest to be psychologists so this sets up a natural challenge or conflict. As far as check your privilege goes, I have no idea what that means.

 

[WisNeuro]

I completely agree that having people with various backgrounds in our field is a good thing. When I was hiring psychotherapists I wanted a diverse bunch as that helped ensure that we could provide a broader range of services. This included various degrees, backgrounds, mix of genders, and ethnicities. I'm not sure why it would not be a good thing to have a wider selection or if anybody really disagrees with that point. How to implement that is a very debatable point. A challeneg is that people from culturally disadvantaged circumstances are going to be at a disadvantage, but we want the best and the brightest to be psychologists so this sets up a natural challenge or conflict. As far as check your privilege goes, I have no idea what that means.

Unpack that backpack. Or some other vague cliche that eludes operationalization.

 

[foreverbull]

Unpack that backpack. Or some other vague cliche that eludes operationalization.

Couldn't resist a little passive-aggressive barb instead of asking for clarification?

I ask for us to not to attack, to not be divisive, and to self-reflect on elitism, and you respond with a passive-aggressive remark about privilege.

Perhaps the "old guard" flocking together like birds of a feather could learn a thing or two about diversity issues and privilege from the younger folks in here if they are truly able to listen. Haven't seen much evidence of that in here....

 

[smalltownpsych]

I don't think the quip met the definition of passive aggressive as I see it. It was pretty directly challenging the construct. Unlike check your privilege, I would posit that the construct of passive-aggressive is a fairly straightforward construct. The main problem is how often it is misapplied. Also, why is the use humor an example of inappropriate dialogue? I asked this question in a similar discussion and never got a response. People are willing to engage in debate on these points so why not just keep debating? I have shifted my own perspective on various topics as I participate in this forum and this has made me a better psychologist. I'm thinking more of professional and treatment issues than political issues when I say this. One example of where I haven't shifted much that is more political is directly tied to this very debate on this thread about access to the field. I agree that there is a problem with high debt and low standards, but I also don't think the fully funded PhD should be the only option. Many of the regular posters would disagree with that and I have debated that point at other times. At this point, I think we do need to begin limiting access so I tend to be on the same page for now which is why I don't debate the point.

 

[Pragma]

Unlike check your privilege, I would posit that the construct of passive-aggressive is a fairly straightforward construct. The main problem is how often it is misapplied.

You read my mind - this is a huge pet peeve of mine.

 

[Pragma]

Depends in which estimation model is used to calculate the figures. One says that the government makes money, one (Fair-value accounting, which the CBO uses) says that once you take in to account market risk and defaulters, the govt (i.e., taxpayers) lose money and foot the bill. Also, this is looking at loans that are fully paid back. If we run the numbers on programs that forgive large levels of debt, the numbers will be much worse for the balance sheets. One thing we can say for certain is that the diploma mills make out like bandits in this scenario, no matter which estimation model is used.

Yeah clearly any forgiveness program is going to "cost" money. Have you got any links to the estimates you referenced? It has been at least a year or two since I have read up on the topic. The last time I read about it, the specific estimate was that it would remain profitable for the government until sometime between 2020-2030 or something like that.

I'm fully in on reforming student loans, making them dischargeable in bankruptcy, and all-around making it more difficult to borrow money. However, I am trying to get clarity on the source of the money for this specific program.

 

[WisNeuro]

What John Snow and Smalltown said. They got the point. Also, there is nothing passive aggressive about my style. It's pretty much just aggressive and direct.

Yeah clearly any forgiveness program is going to "cost" money. Have you got any links to the estimates you referenced? It has been at least a year or two since I have read up on the topic. The last time I read about it, the specific estimate was that it would remain profitable for the government until sometime between 2020-2030 or something like that.

I'm fully in on reforming student loans, making them dischargeable in bankruptcy, and all-around making it more difficult to borrow money. However, I am trying to get clarity on the source of the money for this specific program.

Should Fair-Value Accounting Be Used to Measure the Cost of Federal Credit Programs?
https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/113th-congress-2013-2014/reports/45383-fairvalue.pdf

 

[deleted106747]

Depends. Going with the critical race theory version of diversity or the mills version? If it's the former divide and attack version, I'd suggest you read a history book or 3 and think about factors that foment bigotry such as in group out group exclusions. Consider that the modern, critical race theory based version of diversity is:

- divisive

and

- elitist

Thus, I'd argue that your position is hypocritical.

I'd also suggest that you remember that we are supposed to be a science not a political ideology rubber stamp.

As a reader of quite a bit of history, I'd be curious as to what you offer as an alternative to modern race theory. And also why your standpoint is that it's modern race theory vs. a long history of racism that has been divisive, at least in the US as a country built by slave labor.

 

[smalltownpsych]

As a reader of quite a bit of history, I'd be curious as to what you offer as an alternative to modern race theory. And also why your standpoint is that it's modern race theory vs. a long history of racism that has been divisive, at least in the US as a country built by slave labor.

I think what he was saying is that Mill's writing on the racial contract is less divisive than critical race theory. I don't think he was saying that historical racism and slavery were not divisive. As someone who works with a significant Native American population, I would say that historical racism is less of an impact on current people as opposed to the historical destruction of culture and family structure so I think a lot of people are completely missing the mark by focusing so much on certain salient biological attributes.

 

[deleted106747]

A few things. . .

There were philosophical elements that went into the development of the US. Ideas like "all men are created equal. . ." This, unfortunately, didn't extend to all groups. But, philosophically, to me this is kind of a core issue.

From a classical liberal perspective, it's about individualism and universalism. Within the classical liberal movement, you have the development of trains of thought such as humanism. Critical race theory stands in opposition to classical liberalism, in my opinion.


How Radical Was that Law Professor Obama Hugged?

I would argue that this is a political framework with direct political implications, that it is inconsistent with the American system, and the West in general, and that it emphasizes and creates more in-group/out-group exclusion and not less.

Also, I don't think it is fair or legitimate to argue that the US was "built by slave labor."

Thanks. I am familiar with CRT so I think I missed that it was what you were referring to.

I think CRT is, in part, a critique - or a highlight - of the fact that the US was created under the idea that "all men are created equal" but that this statement was not true, with a lot of hidden bias right underneath it. Or, to my female eyes, right in in it as I feel immediately excluded (and would have been, at that time). That underneath the broad ideals of liberalism there are constructs that work against all people attaining those ideals. CRT would advocate on the side of political agitation, would it not? And without the suffragettes, I would be voiceless.

 

[deleted106747]

I think what he was saying is that Mill's writing on the racial contract is less divisive than critical race theory. I don't think he was saying that historical racism and slavery were not divisive. As someone who works with a significant Native American population, I would say that historical racism is less of an impact on current people as opposed to the historical destruction of culture and family structure so I think a lot of people are completely missing the mark by focusing so much on certain salient biological attributes.

I can see that it is less overtly divisive, but it seems to me that the CRT constructs that have been in existence are the source of a lot of suffering.

The concept of privilege seems to be something that raises a lot of hackles, but I have a hard time understanding why. There are benefits to being male, to being white, to having more money. To being more attractive. I see the concept of privilege as multifaceted, with race & gender being really obvious.

 

[WisNeuro]

I can see that it is less overtly divisive, but it seems to me that the CRT constructs that have been in existence are the source of a lot of suffering.

The concept of privilege seems to be something that raises a lot of hackles, but I have a hard time understanding why. There are benefits to being male, to being white, to having more money. To being more attractive. I see the concept of privilege as multifaceted, with race & gender being really obvious.

It's not the concept itself that raises hackles, it's the conversation. Most of us moderates fully acknowledge its existence. It's more how it's used in discourse. For one, it's used in an amorphous and ever-changing way that eludes any real definition or operationalization. As such, it is rarely used to actually open a dialogue. Rather, it seems to be more likely employed as a way to justify an argument with no real data, simply to quiet an idea that one does not agree with. The polar opposites on this issue have dug into this position, and everyone in the middle is sick of debating people who think that shouting their position louder, or erecting a false and usually hypocritical moral high ground, trumps empiricism.

 

[calimich]

There seem to be two, at least, discussions going on here. One about the PSLF and another about diversity/multiculturalism; perhaps a third about online communication etiquette. Maybe we can split the threads?

One thing I find interesting, both generally in discussions about diversity/multiculturalism in “first life”, and specifically here on SDN, is the call (perhaps demand) for evidence while offering little in return.

Sometimes in the classroom I see a common distraction technique.

“Show me the evidence!”

<evidence presented>

“That’s not the right evidence!”

It seems there are different standards being applied; one “side” asks for evidence but doesn’t provide any.

So I’ll ask, is there evidence that critical race theory is elitist or divisive?


I agree with a Jon Snow that understanding history is important. I hope we will not forget that the “us. vs. them” mentality and a “divisive/elitist/bigoted” philosophy was brought to psychology by White psychologists seeking to justify the enslavement of Black Africans -- clear example of science being used politically. See this thread for citations: “Poorly designed, unethical, questionable research in the history of psychology”

There were also a few posters who seemed to have difficulty understanding how tone can be conveyed via online communication. Although this is not my area, I looked up some sources. Here are a few to get started:

Iosub, D., Laniado, D., Castillo, C., Morell, M., & Kaltenbrunner, A. (2014). Emotions under Discussion: Gender, Status and Communication in Online Collaboration. Plos One, 9(8),1-24.

Belkin, L. Y., Kurtzberg, T. R., & Naquin, C. E. (2013). Signaling Dominance in Online Negotiations: The Role of Affective Tone. Negotiation And Conflict Management Research, (4), 285 - 304.

Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (2002). Behavior online: does anonymous computer communication reduce gender inequality?. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, (8), 1073.

Coffey, B., & Woolworth, S. (2004). “Destroy the scum, and then neuter their families:” the web forum as a vehicle for community discourse?. The Social Science Journal, 411-14. doi:10.1016/j.soscij.2003.10.001

Christopherson, K. M. (2007). The positive and negative implications of anonymity in Internet social interactions: “On the Internet, Nobody Knows You’re a Dog”. Computers In Human Behavior, 23(Education and Pedagogy with Learning Objects and Learning Designs), 3038-3056. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2006.09.001

About to give finals...back later...

 

[WisNeuro]

Just a point of clarification about my call for evidence. Mine was centered around the PSLF question itself, in which some presupposed that it was necessary to alleviate institutional discrepancies. When you put forth an argument, the onus is on the person presenting the argument to back it up. My assertion that diploma mills are the ones benefiting, is purely a fact. Look up the recipients of the most student loan dollars and you will see places like Walden, Argosy, Phoenix, Nova, etc squarely in the top 20 of the list.

 

[Pragma]

A fourth discussion could be what font I should get my "OG" tattoo in. A fifth...where (although I believe there is already a thread for that)?

 

[MCParent]

There were also a few posters who seemed to have difficulty understanding how tone can be conveyed via online communication. Although this is not my area, I looked up some sources. Here are a few to get started:

That's a no true Scotsman fallacy... "you disagree with me, so you must not understand what you're talking about."
I raised that issue, and I could have been more clear. This forum is not so active and there are not so many members that it can be possible to "drown out" or shout down" anyone. Comments are not lost in a sea of posts from regular posters or a sea of highly offensive comments, as might happen on youtube, or down voted and disappear as might happen on reddit or a similar site. That is why I think the "my voice is not being heard" stuff is nonsense.

 

[WisNeuro]

A fourth discussion could be what font I should get my "OG" tattoo in. A fifth...where (although I believe there is already a thread for that)?

Comic Sans, lower back.

 

[WisNeuro]

Also, I disagree with the whole "all of the Old Guard" stick together, nonsense. I've argued with erg at times, I've argued with Jon Snow, Pragma and I have been on both sides of an issue, unlike MCP, I happen to like wearing pants. We disagree all of the time. Outside of maybe the diploma mill issue, we have a myriad of views on most topics. People just seem to throw out "Old Guard!" when they feel threatened or offended in some way.

 

[Pragma]

Also, I disagree with the whole "all of the Old Guard" stick together, nonsense. I've argued with erg at times, I've argued with Jon Snow, Pragma and I have been on both sides of an issue, unlike MCP, I happen to like wearing pants. We disagree all of the time. Outside of maybe the diploma mill issue, we have a myriad of views on most topics. People just seem to throw out "Old Guard!" when they feel threatened or offended in some way.

MCP has always been the Lady Gaga of the forum.

 

[MCParent]

MCP has always been the Lady Gaga of the forum.

 

[Justanothergrad]

Also, I disagree with the whole "all of the Old Guard" stick together, nonsense. I've argued with erg at times, I've argued with Jon Snow, Pragma and I have been on both sides of an issue, unlike MCP, I happen to like wearing pants. We disagree all of the time. Outside of maybe the diploma mill issue, we have a myriad of views on most topics. People just seem to throw out "Old Guard!" when they feel threatened or offended in some way.

Seems like the easier interpretation might be that there is a consensus in the field/forum. But who wants simplicity.

Sidetracking a bit, how do I join this old guard? Is there a handshake or a codeword I need? I can us make badges? Is it too early for me to say 'us'?!

Oh superior and respected internet forum status... I can only dream!

 

[WisNeuro]

Seems like the easier interpretation might be that there is a consensus in the field/forum. But who wants simplicity.

Sidetracking a bit, how do I join this old guard? Is there a handshake or a codeword I need? I can us make badges? Is it too early for me to say 'us'?!

Oh superior and respected internet forum status... I can only dream!

I believe someone has to specifically refer to you as an OG, and maybe whine about you over on gradcafe or something. Then you get a t-shirt and a nice pin. You can also join Pragma in getting an "SDN OG" tramp stamp.

 

[Pragma]

I believe someone has to specifically refer to you as an OG, and maybe whine about you over on gradcafe or something. Then you get a t-shirt and a nice pin. You can also join Pragma in getting an "SDN OG" tramp stamp.

Alternatively, do some work with DJ Aladdin or get on Law & Order

 

[Pragma]

On track for Public Service Loan Forgiveness? Good news, you’re not in danger from Trump’s budget.

Of relevance to the original topic - looks like grandfathering is the intent.

 

[smalltownpsych]

Just a point of clarification about my call for evidence. Mine was centered around the PSLF question itself, in which some presupposed that it was necessary to alleviate institutional discrepancies. When you put forth an argument, the onus is on the person presenting the argument to back it up. My assertion that diploma mills are the ones benefiting, is purely a fact. Look up the recipients of the most student loan dollars and you will see places like Walden, Argosy, Phoenix, Nova, etc squarely in the top 20 of the list.

"We think this program might help people and if you question whether or not this program actually helps people then you don't want to help people." That is the logical flaw that I see day after day that ends up frustrating me. It also seems that the arguments for PLSF are related to a purported intent as opposed to it's outcome and when you question this and provide evidence of potential unintended consequences, that is not responded to.

 

[biscuitsbiscuits]

These terms are used to externalize success and failure. In this framework, to succeed on your own merit requires minority status. If someone believes that a white person is in their position largely due to privilege, it makes it easier to take things away (ie a political theory not a science theory). I am betting that I have a unique experience in this regard on this board. I have explicitly been told that I could not have a job I had been tentatively hired for because I was my sex and race. Completely out in the open. And that's ok because of privilege rhetoric, basically. Am I angry or bitter about this? No, not really. It's the politics of the market today. It's just another variable to deal with. But, there are real problems with the framework. And, the boogieman that it's ok to demonize from this framework is white guys. I'm not arguing oppression or unfairness or anything like that. What I am saying is it is a divisive way to view relationships between people. That it is insulting and also, by definition, bigotry because it is a blanket application of epidemiological data to individuals. The black person, no matter the situation, suffers from white priv and the white person no matter the situation gains from white priv. I just think it's an intellectually poor argument.

Respectfully, this just simply is not what white privilege means. I can understand how you might think this, and if this were the definition of white privilege, I'd agree with you. But I don't believe it is.

Do you believe that all people are born on an equal playing field, with exactly the same advantages and disadvantages? Of course not. And some of these differences have nothing to do with race or gender, sure. And there are ways to overcome these differences on an individual basis that some manage to do, sure. But, much like career success after an Argosy program, this is the exception to the rule. Closed doors, right?

Attending an Argosy program is a choice. Imagine if it wasn't. Imagine all of us being born on the first day of our clinical psych doctoral program after being randomly assigned to all the programs in the country, and then expecting everyone to end up on the other side in exactly the same place.... that's pretty much what the discussion of white privilege is trying to ask, in my understanding. The people who woke up in an Argosy are asking how all of those people who woke up in Harvard (or wherever) expect them to catch up. The Argosys receive sub-par training from the start, they can't get an adequate internship or post-doc, there are systems in place to make actually completing the program more difficult so they stay and owe more money, they are charged more for less, and are paying back loans for the rest of their lives and on and on. That's the SDN nightmare, right? That's the basic premise of white privilege. Some people are born ahead, some people are born behind, some are born in the middle. The questions is, are some groups disproportionally born behind? Do you think the people born into an Argosy are at a disadvantage?

I have the feeling some might bristle at the title of this piece by Ta-Nehisi Coates, but it gives a great history and context for why we still need to be talking about this:

The Case for Reparations

It's worth reading in entirety, but here's a passage:

The lives of black Americans are better than they were half a century ago. The humiliation of whites only signs are gone. Rates of black poverty have decreased. Black teen-pregnancy rates are at record lows—and the gap between black and white teen-pregnancy rates has shrunk significantly. But such progress rests on a shaky foundation, and fault lines are everywhere. The income gap between black and white households is roughly the same today as it was in 1970. Patrick Sharkey, a sociologist at New York University, studied children born from 1955 through 1970 and found that 4 percent of whites and 62 percent of blacks across America had been raised in poor neighborhoods. A generation later, the same study showed, virtually nothing had changed. And whereas whites born into affluent neighborhoods tended to remain in affluent neighborhoods, blacks tended to fall out of them.

This is not surprising. Black families, regardless of income, are significantly less wealthy than white families. The Pew Research Center estimates that white households are worth roughly 20 times as much as black households, and that whereas only 15 percent of whites have zero or negative wealth, more than a third of blacks do. Effectively, the black family in America is working without a safety net. When financial calamity strikes—a medical emergency, divorce, job loss—the fall is precipitous.

And just as black families of all incomes remain handicapped by a lack of wealth, so too do they remain handicapped by their restricted choice of neighborhood. Black people with upper-middle-class incomes do not generally live in upper-middle-class neighborhoods. Sharkey’s research shows that black families making $100,000 typically live in the kinds of neighborhoods inhabited by white families making $30,000. “Blacks and whites inhabit such different neighborhoods,” Sharkey writes, “that it is not possible to compare the economic outcomes of black and white children.”

 

[calimich]

This forum is not so active and there are not so many members that it can be possible to "drown out" or shout down" anyone. Comments are not lost in a sea of posts from regular posters or a sea of highly offensive comments, as might happen on youtube, or down voted and disappear as might happen on reddit or a similar site. That is why I think the "my voice is not being heard" stuff is nonsense.

That’s your opinion. I imagine from your perspective that could seem true. I disagree. It reminds me of the saying about the fish not realizing the water is wet.

I agree that posts are not lost to "a sea of highly offensive comments...or downvoted." Thanks to the mods for the former and the site designers for the latter. However, SDN psych forums certainly do have a relatively small number of very active users. And I think it’s fascinating that in the middle of this very conversation, partly about how “comments are not lost in a sea of posts”, there was a series of posts about tattoos and nicknames.

Inside jokes? Just trying to be funny? Distraction technique? Start a joke thread, please.
(Now perhaps someone will suggest I need to "learn to take a joke" or "just get over it.")

And my post with references was responding to your post:

Ugh, more of this tone nonsense. I'd like it to be explained to me how "voices" can be "loud" on an Internet forum. Most of the time this is said, it is because someone posted facts that are inconvenient to what someone who posted chooses to believe, and that is now perceived as offensive.

Specifically to the part where you wrote “I’d like it to be explained to me…” The articles I cited attempt to do some of that explaining.

I'll add that I firmly believe that if one person asks a question there are many many more who have similar questions, but don't ask. So to be transparent, when I post resources it's partly through my educator lens as a way to help others find answers.

 

[WisNeuro]

I imagine there will be a lot of agreeing to disagree here. In relative terms to the rest of the internet, and even forums here on SDN, this is by far one of the tamer subforums I have ever seen. There will be those of us on each side, who think that there is too much "bullying" and those of us that think that people are being overly sensitive. People have every right to take offense to whatever they want, just as other people have every right to not care much about what people do or do not take offense to. I firmly believe that it's part of the job. If you bristle at every little thing, you'll never make it with supervisors and training, let alone difficult patients in this line of work.

 

[MCParent]

That’s your opinion. I imagine from your perspective that could seem true. I disagree. It reminds me of the saying about the fish not realizing the water is wet.

I agree that posts are not lost to "a sea of highly offensive comments...or downvoted." Thanks to the mods for the former and the site designers for the latter. However, SDN psych forums certainly do have a relatively small number of very active users. And I think it’s fascinating that in the middle of this very conversation, partly about how “comments are not lost in a sea of posts”, there was a series of posts about tattoos and nicknames.

Inside jokes? Just trying to be funny? Distraction technique? Start a joke thread, please.
(Now perhaps someone will suggest I need to "learn to take a joke" or "just get over it.")

And my post with references was responding to your post:



Specifically to the part where you wrote “I’d like it to be explained to me…” The articles I cited attempt to do some of that explaining.

Did you read the studies you cited? They don't have anything to do with what I said. They're about the existence of tone, mostly. Which I don't dispute.

 

[biscuitsbiscuits]

Respectfully, it is what "white privilege" means. It is how it is used. It is why the word "privilege" was chosen. It is an agitator word, born of bourgeoisie/proletariat conceptual space. "Check your privilege." It is a call to the individual, to invalidate an opinion, based on some variable (e.g., whiteness). Based on in group out/group exclusion. This is poison.

Of course, people aren't fully equal in opportunity. If x person was hired by google in 1997 and y person was hired by AMD at the same time, x person is rich and y person is substantially less so. That's almost entirely luck. People vary substantially in intellectual, athletic and other talents in terms of genetic potential. They also vary in terms of exposure to opportunities to develop said talent. Parents may abuse their children by exposing them to religion early and telling them that supernatural things exist. This happens. One person is taller, shorter, more attractive, develops a neurodegenerative disease young, has a parent die of cancer, is sexually abused by a priest, identified as gifted early, grows up in a home with a lot of money, a parent may be a professor at University of Chicago and they get an elite education from day one, etc . . .Yeah, there are lots of sources for advantage and disadvantage.

Arguing from epidemiological data (the passage from your article) to an individual is simply wrong, in my opinion. It is a way of looking at an individual and justifying judging that person's advantages and disadvantages purely on a racial attribute. You don't know where the person grew up, who their parents were, their friends, their abilities, their decisions, their mental health, etc. . . But, they had "x" advantage. And, further, those advantages are relative. Maybe I grew up "rich" compared to lots of people, but not compared to say Donald Trump's children or Barack Obama's.

Also, consider this. Privilege is something that it is negative to have, an unfair advantage. Whereas much of what is cited as "privilege" in this space are things that should be expected. They aren't privileges. The problem is racism.

I realize now that a big part of the problem for you is the word "privilege." I can see why the word rankles you, and it clearly hits you in a personal and emotional way. I think I can understand that. In my encounters with the term, I have not had the experiences you described (invalidation, in-group/out-group exclusion, inherent negativity of the word "privilege," etc.). Maybe that's why I've been a little baffled by your responses here. It doesn't seem like a term that validates or invalidates anyone or any group to me. It doesn't seem like an aggressive term, just one that describes something systemic that I agree occurs in this country.

"Yes, I've had lots of advantages compared to the average American. Ok, and?"

That's cool! Me too. No one is angry with you for that. No one wants to take that away from you or make you feel like a bad person because of that. Or, at least I (truly, truly) do not believe that is the spirit of the term "white privilege." I think people just want acknowledgment that there are actually groups of people who, on the whole, are a lot less likely to be born with those advantages. Someone coined this term, it resonated, and it took off. I agree that it's imperfect. I wish it did a better job of suggesting that the advantages white people tend to be born with were not necessarily advantages but the default expectations for all groups/people. Maybe someone will come up with a better term that communicates this.

I don't think anyone is trying to take epi data and apply it to an individual. The term and the discussion, as I think it was originally intended, remains at a higher group and systemic level. I don't think anyone denies, as I said in my post, that there's a ton of individual variation within and among groups. Whenever I see that argument ("some white guys have less money than some black guys!" or something), I know that there is a misunderstanding of the term.

Just curious: do you believe that some groups are more systematically and disproportionally disadvantaged than others in this country? If not, then I think that is where we have to agree to disagree. Everything else seems like semantics.

 

[biscuitsbiscuits]

Thinking further on this because I'm trying to see where you are coming from...

Do you think that because we can't consistently apply this to individuals, it isn't real or relevant or that we shouldn't be talking about it?

 

[WisNeuro]

Thinking further on this because I'm trying to see where you are coming from...

Do you think that because we can't consistently apply this to individuals, it isn't real or relevant or that we shouldn't be talking about it?

I can empathize with Jon somewhat, it's not that that some feel that the differences/advantages don't exist, or that we should not talk about them. More, it's how the terms are used and discussions take place. There are epic failures on both sides of the discussions. On the side Jon talks about, we sometimes see people's achievements invalidated and ascribed purely/mostly based on this one advantage, discounting other factors and background difficulties that have been overcome. There is generally more variation within these groups than between them, depending on how they are grouped. Additionally, grouping based on anything will leave some on the tails, misgrouped and generally mis-labeled, depending on what outcome you are interested in.

 

[deleted480308]

I realize now that a big part of the problem for you is the word "privilege." I can see why the word rankles you, and it clearly hits you in a personal and emotional way. I think I can understand that. In my encounters with the term, I have not had the experiences you described (invalidation, in-group/out-group exclusion, inherent negativity of the word "privilege," etc.). Maybe that's why I've been a little baffled by your responses here. It doesn't seem like a term that validates or invalidates anyone or any group to me. It doesn't seem like an aggressive term, just one that describes something systemic that I agree occurs in this country.

"Yes, I've had lots of advantages compared to the average American. Ok, and?"

That's cool! Me too. No one is angry with you for that. No one wants to take that away from you or make you feel like a bad person because of that. Or, at least I (truly, truly) do not believe that is the spirit of the term "white privilege." I think people just want acknowledgment that there are actually groups of people who, on the whole, are a lot less likely to be born with those advantages. Someone coined this term, it resonated, and it took off. I agree that it's imperfect. I wish it did a better job of suggesting that the advantages white people tend to be born with were not necessarily advantages but the default expectations for all groups/people. Maybe someone will come up with a better term that communicates this.

I don't think anyone is trying to take epi data and apply it to an individual. The term and the discussion, as I think it was originally intended, remains at a higher group and systemic level. I don't think anyone denies, as I said in my post, that there's a ton of individual variation within and among groups. Whenever I see that argument ("some white guys have less money than some black guys!" or something), I know that there is a misunderstanding of the term.

Just curious: do you believe that some groups are more systematically and disproportionally disadvantaged than others in this country? If not, then I think that is where we have to agree to disagree. Everything else seems like semantics.

Except they do... that's always the next step that something must be done to rectify the perceived wrong

 

[biscuitsbiscuits]

I think we should talk about institutionalized racism. I think we should talk about structural racism. I think we should talk about disadvantages of minority and socioeconomic status. I think we should try very hard to make things more equitable in terms of opportunity (not necessarily outcome).

Agreed. I would consider all of the above to be components of the concept of white privilege.

I think the word, privilege, is ill advised.

Also agreed. But mostly because it distracts from the more important conversation.

 

[biscuitsbiscuits]

I can empathize with Jon somewhat, it's not that that some feel that the differences/advantages don't exist, or that we should not talk about them. More, it's how the terms are used and discussions take place. There are epic failures on both sides of the discussions. On the side Jon talks about, we sometimes see people's achievements invalidated and ascribed purely/mostly based on this one advantage, discounting other factors and background difficulties that have been overcome. There is generally more variation within these groups than between them, depending on how they are grouped. Additionally, grouping based on anything will leave some on the tails, misgrouped and generally mis-labeled, depending on what outcome you are interested in.

I can see that. And you are right about problems in grouping.

As for the invalidation of achievements, though, I think this might be a perception rather than an actuality. I really don't believe anyone is tying to take anything away from white people by using the term "white privilege." But I can see why the P word bothers people and will say again that it's an imperfect term itself which is often used poorly/ineffectively on top of that. I guess it just doesn't bother me personally (as a white person) and I sometimes wonder why it grates on others so strongly.

 

[WisNeuro]

I'd be careful about dismissing it as merely perception and not acknowledging that it does creep up in some ways. I agree that it is not the main goal of such discussions, but it does come out in some circumstances. It doesn't necessarily bother me either, but I do think that some of the louder voices on both sides of this issue serve to make it a contentious issue that grates some so strongly. To simply dismiss one of those tails ends is folly, and it's a folly with consequences that we saw all to well in the last general election.

 

[MCParent]

I can see that. And you are right about problems in grouping.

As for the invalidation of achievements, though, I think this might be a perception rather than an actuality. I really don't believe anyone is tying to take anything away from white people by using the term "white privilege." But I can see why the P word bothers people and will say again that it's an imperfect term itself which is often used poorly/ineffectively on top of that. I guess it just doesn't bother me personally (as a white person) and I sometimes wonder why it grates on others so strongly.

And herein is the problem. When we do research on racism and sexism, we look at perception of those often. Legitimately. When "privileged" people say they perceive it, we just tell them they are wrong. Five moves later, you have president Trump.

 

[calimich]

I appreciate the honesty on this thread and it seems we're agreeing that the way racism/inequality/privilege is talked about is clumsy, perhaps offensive to some. I think we're also agreeing that some may feel their accomplishments and/or perceptions are invalidated when the word "privilege" gets used. I agree that words matter, perceptions matter, feelings matter.

Can we also agree that structural inequality exists? And that it's not random?

As Jon Snow wrote earlier, "I think we should talk about institutionalized racism. I think we should talk about structural racism." Yet, much of this thread, and others when the topic comes up, tends to revolve around semantics, definitions, word choice, how people feel when these conversations occur, rather than structural racism itself. Why do y'all think that is?

Could we move toward talking about institutionalized racism?

How did institutionalized racism come to be? How do you explain/understand the stats Jon linked to earlier? What can we, as a society, as psychologists, do to combat it? Do we need to combat it? What do you do to combat it? Can it be undone?