I just finished the slightly dated book The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump (it was published in 2017, during Trump 1.0). The book contains a variety of essays written by 27 psychologists, offering their perspectives on Trump’s fitness to preside and his mental health. The book also talks a lot about the Goldwater Rule, which originated in 1964 when an article was published gauging Barry Goldwater to be mentally unfit to be president. Goldwater sued the magazine and won. The rule remains controversial. Per the rule, psychologists who are part of the APA (American Psychiatric Association) agree not to offer their personal opinions about public figures they have not personally examined and from whom they do not have consent. Psychologists who disagree with the rule can practice outside the APA, or can write about their objections to the rule, and many have.
The main objections psychologists have to the rule are:
- Free speech. They should be able to share their professional insights without being gagged in the public sphere. It’s like telling EPA employees they can’t say anything about pollution when WaPo calls to chat them up.
- Public figures’ actions are observable. This is a critical point because it’s different than trying to opine on someone whose behavior you can’t see. You have hours and hours of footage of public figures in which they reveal their character, their strengths & weaknesses, and their traumas and pathologies.
- Duty to warn. If the public is in danger (as in the EPA example), psychologists argue that they should use their knowledge to educate others, particularly the voting public, before dangerous persons are given access to the codes.
- Evolving ethical standards. They argue that the Goldwater Rule is outdated from a time when there were paper publications, not social media. Any fool can Tweet, but psychologists are gagged.
My personal opinion is that I’m not sure the rule really matters for several reasons. One reason is that people know Trump is “unfit” per these definitions and see it as a strength, or his supporters do. They define mental health differently than do those on the left–as I’ll explore in a moment. Many of the critiques made by (predominantly left-leaning) psychologists are things that conservatives see as positives. Here are the things the article claimed made Barry Goldwater unfit:
- Overly aggressive foreign policy. He was viewed as trigger-happy, suggesting a tactical nuclear strike in Vietnam. There was fear that he would spark nuclear war. These exact same fears were expressed throughout the book about Donald Trump, and let’s be honest, they still exist–but conservative hawks might see this as a show of strength, not of instability and danger.
- Perceived emotional instability and paranoia. Goldwater believed and spread conspiracy theories, claiming that the East Coast establishment and the media were marshalled against him. Again, these are things that conservatives believe about Trump, but to some extent, that’s just politics. I’m not excusing conspiracy theories, especially given how extreme they are, but media can be partisan and so can elites. There’s a fine line between being paranoid and someone actually being out to get you (e.g. opposing your candidacy or ideas).
- Rigid ideological thinking. Goldwater’s strong adherence to conservative and libertarian ideals was seen by psychologists as inflexible, and that his anti-government, anti-communist views would make him unwilling to compromise in governance. Well, 1964 folks, in the words of the immortal (and ex-Mormon) Randy Bachman, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet.
I mean, let’s get real–those three criticisms, which may not exactly connote perfect mental health, also describe Nixon very, very well.[1] They describe a lot of politicians, frankly. There’s also an undertone of hysteria (perhaps rightly so) in some of the essays when it comes to fears of someone pushing the button, causing global nuclear war. Look, I don’t want nuclear war either, but this is the playing field we are on. It’s terrifying that Trump has openly stated that there’s no point to having these nuclear weapons if we aren’t willing to use them.
Psychologists have also assessed that probably 49% of US Presidents were narcissists, and that was without the TikTok trend of armchair diagnosing everyone as a narcissist–which of course a lot of them probably are. Biden sure as hell acted like one at the end with his refusal to get out of the race (will the real “I alone can fix it” guy please stand up?). If we’re going to start disqualifying narcissists from political office, well, I’m not sure who’s going to run.
But in general, conservatives are pretty skeptical about psychology, and many psychologists lean left. Over a decade ago, my second kid was having some depression and anxiety, and some ward members who knew them talked about stopping by their work. I thought that sounded like a nice gesture until they elaborated. The husband said he’d talk some sense into my kid and basically bully them out of their depression (from my perspective, since apparently depression was just mind over matter to this yahoo). Yeah, that was not gonna fly. It’s definitely not the only time I’ve heard someone on the right deride mental health issues as not real. Here are a few reasons conservatives are skeptical of psychology:
- Concerns about political bias. As I’ve already pointed out, this is a fair point. Psychology is dominated by those who hold liberal and progressive perspectives.
- Disagreement over diagnoses of public figures. Already covered this–to the right, it’s viewed as using psychology as a political weapon. More to say on this in a moment.
- Disagreement over religious or other social issues. Many conservatives argue that religious views are pathologized by psychologists. They also may disagree with the diagnosis of gender dysphoria or sexual orientation or may believe that conversion therapy is legitimate, arguing that the scientific basis is wrong or politically motivated. I personally disagree, but I also grew up watching old movies like the Tender Trap in which psychologists treated homosexuality as a mental illness. Meaning, OK, yes, I agree that “new” or “changing” psychological treatments or diagnoses can feel either like progress (how I see them), overcorrections (how general conservatives might see them, and how I might see some things in psychology), or fabrications (how a bunch of assholes who were just elected doubtless see them so they can ruin people’s lives and strip away civil rights).
- Skepticism toward therapy culture and victimhood narratives. I recently re-watched the pilot episode of All in the Family, which was like current Twitter with broader ties, and this is one of the main themes of that show–that those on the left all see everyone as victims, while those on the right (like Archie Bunker and his peace-keeping but enabling wife Edith) incorrectly see themselves as having overcome everything on their own, but are also completely incapable of dealing with emotions (good or bad) and will not admit to their victimization of others and their obvious bigotry.
Another argument explored in the book is whether conservatives are, to some degree, mentally ill.
“Dad comes home and he’s pissed. He’s not vengeful, he loves his children. Disobedient as they may be, he loves them, because they’re his children. … And when Dad gets home, you know what he says? You’ve been a bad girl. You’ve been a bad little girl and you’re getting a vigorous spanking right now. And no, it’s not going to hurt me more than it hurts you. No, it’s not. I’m not going to lie. It’s going to hurt you a lot more than it hurts me. And you earned this. You’re getting a vigorous spanking because you’ve been a bad girl, and it has to be this way.” – Tucker Carlson, referring to the American public as a spoiled teenager who is about to be beaten by an angry father, Donald Trump. [2]
Does that sound normal and mentally healthy to you? Whether this constitutes mental illness or not, as the saying goes, hurt people hurt people. Additionally, Trump and others on the right are in fact dishing out the same exact “insult” that their political opponents are mentally ill. “These are sick, sick people.” The issues the right point to as mental illness are: being transgender, rejecting traditional gender roles or social structures, promoting victimhood, and seeking mental healthcare (e.g. going to therapy). Ergo, if you aren’t mentally ill, why would you go to therapy?
The core issue between these two extremes, and they are extreme, is the balance between affirmation and challenge. As I mentioned in the story about my kid, I assumed these ward friends had an affirming attitude, that they were going to support my kid. They assumed that what my kid needed (from them? why?) was a swift kick in the pants, in other words, to be challenged. Personally, I do think affirmation can go only so far before it becomes pointless navel gazing. If you are in therapy for life, well, maybe you just need some friends, or someone who actually wants you to “graduate” from therapy rather than continuing to make money from your distress. But at the other extreme, you’ve got bullying, repression, and denial, and that can lead to suicide, depression, anxiety, and a host of other problems. Neither extreme is productive. Both can be harmful.
It’s not to say that everyone who is conservative is against psychology. There are conservative psychologists like Jordan Peterson (yes, that Jordan Peterson) who dislike identity politics, safe spaces (well, unless the safe spaces are designed to protect conservatives, natch), and “woke” mental health frameworks. Instead, these folks focus on:
- CBT or Cognitive Behavioral Therapy. In this, the focus is on personal responsibility, resilience, and practical coping skills. It’s highly regarded, although not everyone out there who is doing CBT is actually accredited, so caveat emptor.
- Use of psychology in law enforcement. ACAB, but they do a little better when they can use psychological understanding in working with victims and perpetrators rather than just relying on the old “rubber hose treatment.”
While we’re discussing this, it’s probably not a huge surprise that the Hamakers of the Latter-day Struggles podcast announced this week that they are resigning their Church membership ahead of a church court in which they are pretty convinced their local leaders intended to excommunicate them. Valerie is a trained psychologist (Nathan her husband is not, just her fellow podcaster). This is partly a reminder of Natasha’s excommunication several years ago, but it’s also quite different. Clearly they have a wider audience due to their podcast, but (interestingly) at no time did their local leaders tell them to quit podcasting. Aside from the conservative disagreement with psychology as I’ve outlined it here, I will also add that conservative churches in particular seem to have some real problems with psychologists, at least with those who aren’t “approved” by them. There are many church members who won’t go to a non-LDS therapist, and many ex-Mormons who won’t go to an LDS one.
To me it also looks like another area where Church leaders find experts threatening. When you persistently take stances that don’t line up with psychology or science (to the extent psychology is scientific), you can either change your stance or you can discredit and fire the scientists and psychologists, and we can all see what the current trend is politically.
- Do you see the current conservative culture on a collision course with mainstream psychology?
- Do you think Church leaders find psychologists threatening or (as Valerie & Nathan shared) is it fine what they say behind closed doors, so long as they pretend the church is right in public?
- How do you deal with issues like loss of faith, trans or queer identities, etc., in a conservative religion while also fostering mental health?
- What’s the point of going to a therapist who only agrees with you? How do you strike the right balance between affirmation and challenge?
- Do fields like science and psychology undermine church narratives? Are they a threat to church authority (I almost said Papal Authority, LOL)?
Discuss.
[1] Was Nixon mentally ill? I mean, sure, maybe. Was he unfit? I think so, but then I have the benefit of hindsight. A really great case could be made for him descending into alcoholism, depression and paranoia as Watergate unfolded–if we had political will to enact the 25th amendment, and had he not resigned, we could have seen where that would have gone.
[2] There’s also a reason Carlson used the analogy of spanking a teenage girl (aside from the titillating Matt Gaetz related implications). There’s a view of psychology on the right as being soft, feminine, and weak. Stereotypically, girls are taught social skills and soft power skills like persuasion, discussion, and diplomacy, and boys are taught physical skills like competition, strength, and hiding your feelings. It’s no wonder that the two parties as presently constituted also have a gender gap.
Wheat & Tares 
Thank you for your review of psychology. I am new to blogs and found yours because I am a retired Clinical Psychologist. I am also a Christian. I have not found the two identities to be in conflict. Helping others to work through issues troubling them without condemning them for those issues was an approach that opened them to considering ways to change. Christ was accepting and loving but also against using religion to control others and against those who were hypocrites.
I have brain damage so I’m only trying to learn. I am not wanting to make any money from your content. I do apologize if I have stepped over that line. I don’t want to get any copyright infringement against me. So please don’t think that I’m wanting to steal your work.
I think it’s time to examine the psychological fitness of people who voted to have a President who is and always has been so clearly a danger to anyone in the way of his (literally) rapacious agenda.
I grew up in NYS and, believe me, all the indications have been there from the 70s. Well before he was impeached and convicted a multiple felon. You have to be a fool or willfully ignorant to miss them.
It will fall on the idiot MAGots when the US is a fully fascist state and democracy is a global victim. If they don’t recognize it, history will. And that has to include prophets, seers and revelators who failed to provide the necessary warnings.
Downvote to your heart’s content. It can’t alter the truth.
I can’t speak for everyone, but I can give my perspective. I tend to lean more conservative/libertarian. I also have a lot of experience interacting with psychologists both on my own behalf (I have ADHD) and on behalf of my children (all of them are neurodivergent in one form or another).
There are clearly areas where I trust psychologists to help me and my children. Where I tend to get more skeptical of them is when they start moving from well-established medical foundations into pushing things that are clearly the political flavor of the day, especially if they dismiss without evidence contrary theories or views.
As an example, consider the current push on the left related to transgenderism. To hear the left tell it, once someone gives even a hint that they might have gender dysphoria, the only appropriate approach is to immediately support them and help them transition. Anything less is abuse. Because of their political leanings, many psychologists support this approach.
And yet, that ignores that there are a number of people who have transitioned for whom the transition did not solve the gender dysphoria. It ignores the comorbidities that many of their patients have (a staggeringly high number are neurodivergent or suffer from other disorders such as depression) that perhaps should be treated first. It ignores evidence of “social contagion” and peer pressure in some cases. This isn’t to say that cases of gender dysphoria should be ignored, or that it isn’t a real condition, but looking at how many psychologists approach it because of their political beliefs it’s clear that it causes them to over-index on the one disorder without treating the whole patient.
If an “expert’s” solution always aligns with their political beliefs, it gets suspicious.
Similarly, we dealt with one psychologist for several of our children, and it was suspicious that he wanted to treat all of them with the same mixture of drugs, even when we didn’t see improvement with some of them. After getting second opinions and changing providers, the new psychologists gave our children individualized treatment plans that have been far more successful.
Even the tendency to “diagnose” political opponents as mentally ill makes a lot of psychologists suspect. Especially when there are numerous studies out there that show that liberals/progressives suffer from disorders like depression and anxiety at far higher rates than conservatives. (Which leaves two options: either everyone suffers from these disorders and conservatives are better at hiding it/refuse to get treatment, in which case are they really “disorders” if they affect such a wide portion of the population? Or, many of the cases are liberals/progressives projecting their own issues onto their political opponent. It could also be a combination of the two.) Again, if all of your political opponents are mentally ill, and none of your allies are, it’s suspect.
So, in short, I tend to trust psychologists and psychology when it sticks to areas that are well-established, but I get more skeptical as they venture more and more into the political realm and appear unquestioning of things that agree with their politics.
Great subject. And right up my alley as someone trained in mental health. But, I am recovering from food poisoning from eating restaurant food so, I am not up to commenting much right now. Maybe later.
Just one thought that ties into this, and that is education, because psychologists are educated and your Archie Bunker type is not. And *some* people can go through college and come out as uneducated as they went in. Conservatives are less educated than liberals and that has something to do with the anti intellectualism that is anti psychology.
Anna, the whole “Conservatives are less educated than liberals” line is a form of bigotry. Both liberals and conservatives have a significant distribution of education on their sides. There are highly educated and highly uneducated people on both sides. (Liberals and Conservatives tend to favor different fields in their education, but that’s not the same thing as being uneducated.) Especially when you are talking within the Church (which tends to have a far more educated population than other conservative groups), it’s really nothing more than a way for one side to look down their noses at the other.
For example, I have multiple Masters degrees. I know many other conservatives with MBAs, MSs, and PhDs, not to mention MDs and JDs. There is a deep tradition of conservative education. “Archie Bunker” is not the archetype of your typical conservative.
Lots of presidents have strong psychopathy traits. Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, and Trump fit the profile pretty well. It’s not just conservatives.
observer, not bigotry, but statistically, conservatives have less formal education. Not my opinion, but statistical fact. So, facts are bigotry?
what your claim is, would be like me stating blacks are working class or chronically poor is racist. No, statistically, blacks are poor or working class because of racism. The observation is not the racism.
So, conservatives are more likely to have a high school education, while liberals are more likely to have a college education. Not bigotry, just a statistical fact. Now, if I had said it as conservatives are stupid, then you have a point, but that was not what I said, so please stop projecting your bigotry onto me.
Difficult to take Observer seriously. I mean, I guess his comments are ‘observations,’ but they don’t comport with reality in relation to either education or how liberals supposedly respond to someone with a hint of gender dysphoria. In no way an accurate portrayal. Psychologically, they call this ‘confirmation basis.’ It’s strong with this one.
Yes the church has long mistrusted psychologists. For there has long been a tendency for psychologists to validate LGBTQ identities and many sexual activities that the church frowns on our outright forbids. Psychologists have had a tendency to turn the church’s taboos into norms.
It isn’t just Tucker Carlson who is mentally unwell, I just listen to all these grifters on the right and they often sound clinically insane. Candace Owens, Alex Jones, Stephen Crowder, Tim Pool, Dave Rubin, Jordan Peterson, and the list goes on. There is leaked video footage of Stephen Crowder verbally abusing his pregnant wife in very disturbing ways. It is truly disgusting. I think they know darn well that they are lying on a regular basis and that what they say in public doesn’t match what they actually think in private. But their constant need to be relevant and to cause outrage among an increasingly outrage-driven and outrage-hungry audience keeps them diving to new lows. They also know that they are regarded as scum among the larger intellectual classes, which they at one point in their lives tried to fit in to, but couldn’t cut it. So they’ve resorted to anti-intellectualism. The biggest paradox is that in spite of their constant outrage against identity politics, their whole persona is based on a very vicious and visceral conservative identity politics where they treat conservatism not as a list of well-argued values and ideals to which they strive to achieve but instead as a group of people with fixed ideological identities who they view as victims of some mysterious liberal boogeyman from whom they seek to liberate. Nowhere do victimhood narratives thrive more than in conservative discourse.
Observer, statistically speaking conservatives are less educated than liberals. Of course there are outliers.
Beyond that, though, what conservativism was in the past is different from what it is now. Conservatism used to have an intellectual basis. Now it just doesn’t. It is a cult of personality built around Trump. It doesn’t care about values or facts. It only cares about making liberals angry. Conservatives of the past believed in free trade and standing up against Russian aggression.
Wow!….Just Wow! You write this article and declare that Conservatives are mentally ill??? Take some time in front of a mirror with some healthy introspection. Talk about obession to an unhealthy degree. More importantly — Geez, get a life.
Wheat and Tares has really gone to Hell! Used to be a great place to visit – but this place has become Bat Sh*t Cray Cray…..
“Statistically speaking” is a cop out. Go read the book “How to Lie With Statistics” and you will see what I mean. I specifically addressed that in my comments. You can’t look at just the average (mean median or mode) of each group to characterize the whole group. You have to also look at things like the distribution. As I pointed out, there is a wide distribution of education on both sides. That makes it very hard to generalize.
On average, men can run faster than women, but there are a whole lot of women who can run faster than me. Why? Because the distributions of the two groups (the bell curves) overlap to a significant extent. You cannot make generalizations about either group based solely on the average.
In any other context, relying on the average to look down on a group would be considered bigotry. “Statistically speaking (insert group here) is less educated” might be a justifiable statement based on some readings of statistics, but if it were “Blacks” instead of “Conservatives”, would you claim it’s not bigoted?
In fact, I would say that making such generalizations is a rather “uneducated” use of statistics. It shows a cursory understanding of statistics at best.
Here is The Economist on the demographics of Trump’s quickly failing favorabilities. https://www.economist.com/interactive/trump-approval-tracker
Note in particular the breakdown on education levels. I’m sure MAs will be helpful in interpreting this information.
grizzerbear55: You definitely didn’t read the entire OP, or if you did, you failed to notice that 1) it’s a (skeptical) review of a book, and 2) it points out the issues when both sides are using psychological claims as political weapons. I didn’t exonerate the left in my analysis. I think claims are overblown and biased, and that many presidents and politicians exhibit these characteristics. Hysteria over the nuclear age is also a motivator that just doesn’t make sense to me as we can’t change it, and I don’t know who is fit to make these types of calls. It’s ironic that your criticism boils down to calling the site crazy.
I do think there’s a distinction between the right and the left in how each side views soft power (diplomacy, persuasion, discussion, empathy) vs. hard power (aggression, threats, tariffs, anger). Both can be useful political tools, and they all have to be used in an appropriate context and to the right degree to be effective. That seems like a skill issue to me more than a mental illness question, unless we stray into abuse, arrested emotional development, and erratic behavior. But all of these things exist on a continuum.
Observer: There are some cases, as you point out, of regret for transitioning among those who are neurodivergent. My understanding is that those cases are rare. I’m sure there are some psychologists who are too affirming without sufficient vetting and questioning, but I’m sure many are appropriately balanced. I honestly don’t know what the right answer is to this one as it’s a new shift, but then I’m not a psychologist.
Brad D: I agree that this is the main reason that the Church prefers its own hand-picked therapists. The problem is that some of the issues that create mental health problems originate with the church (sexual shame) and others are exacerbated by its teachings (scrupulosity, negative self worth).
gebanks: Definitely agree with this. I mentioned that 49% of US presidents have probably been narcissists according to psychologists, and many others had other issues. Kennedy was a philandering narcissist on a daily cocktail of pills that altered his abilities. Both Clinton and Biden (IMO) were narcissists whose overblown sense of self-importance clouded their judgement. Wilson was completely incapacitated (his wife ran the country). Nixon was a depressed, paranoid alcoholic. Lincoln suffered from severe depression as well.
Ace Tubbs: Always love to hear from those in the actual trenches on these topics.
Observer writes “As an example, consider the current push on the left related to transgenderism. To hear the left tell it, once someone gives even a hint that they might have gender dysphoria, the only appropriate approach is to immediately support them and help them transition. Anything less is abuse. Because of their political leanings, many psychologists support this approach.” Source?
While it’s only one data point, I know many parents of transgender children and many of them have not transitioned. But they are being supported, being educated of their options.
Valerie’s resignation is the church’s loss full stop. Same goes for Natasha’s withdrawal of membership. Same for my kids.
My comment cut off early.
Jodie Hildebrandt offered mental health services and was referred to by church leaders. Valerie and Natasha have left because the church disapproves that they follow their professional guidelines.
Which therapist would you rather patronize? Which therapist would you refer to your children?
Chiming in as another data point on this: “As an example, consider the current push on the left related to transgenderism. To hear the left tell it, once someone gives even a hint that they might have gender dysphoria, the only appropriate approach is to immediately support them and help them transition. Anything less is abuse. Because of their political leanings, many psychologists support this approach.”
I’m on the left and have a child that exhibits some potentially gender dysphoric personality traits. He goes to a ‘lefty’ therapist and has a ‘lefty’ school teacher. No one has ever even hinted that we push to transition. If he initiated a transition, we would support him, otherwise he seems happy just being a boy that likes mostly traditionally feminine things.
Observer, we have to align on what the definition of educated is. Based on the last part of your comment, you are using college degrees as a loose measure. Just a quick Google search on this topic brings up some interesting data on this.
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2016/04/26/a-wider-ideological-gap-between-more-and-less-educated-adults/
That data does show that liberals do tend to be the ones that engage in higher education over conservatives.
https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2019/08/19/the-growing-partisan-divide-in-views-of-higher-education-2/
That one is interesting because it shows that Republicans completely changed their tune on higher education during the first Trump admin to view higher education as way more negative. Not surprising as higher education tends to challenge strongly held conservative religious dogmas and conspiracy theories. I think you would be better off saying that there WAS a deep tradition of conservative education. That data I’m seeing as I dig into this is that the 1990s was the era of deep conservative education. Current data shows that red states overwhelming fall into low end of education measures. For crying out loud, during the first Trump admin, they coined the phrase “alternative truth.” It’s crazy because you can’t even bring up data now that disagrees with someone’s beliefs because those beliefs are completely enmeshed with their identity–so it is perceived as an attack.
Observer,
For the record, the Pew Research Center described exactly what those who have offered comments about there being an ideological divide intensifying between the more and less educated Americans. They noted this clear back in 2014, so it should be news to no one.
To quote: Democrats lead by 22 points (57%-35%) in leaned party identification among adults with post-graduate degrees. The Democrats’ edge is narrower among those with college degrees or some post-graduate experience (49%-42%), and those with less education (47%-39%). Across all educational categories, women are more likely than men to affiliate with the Democratic Party or lean Democratic. The Democrats’ advantage is 35 points (64%-29%) among women with post-graduate degrees, but only eight points (50%-42%) among post-grad men.
I am fairly certain that Pew know how to properly gather data and interpret it.
Observer, I would love to see the data behind all the supposed lefties that are pushing gender transition treatments. That sounds more like a caricature of the left made up by the right. But, if it is true that there is a push for major bodily modification to match how someone is feeling when they are a kid, that does deserve a hard look. I suspect though that is similar to the right crying foul to the NCAA over 10 transgender athletes playing sports out of a total of 500,000+ athletes. What I see on the “left” is a desire to be an ally for those people who experience life differently from what may be deemed as normal. The only place I’ve ever heard of this supposed push for gender affirming treatments is from right-wing media talking about what the left is doing.
My description of “the left” there was based on my own observations, watching the debates in my state’s legislature on several topics, including the recent attempts to gut the parental rights initiative that was passed just last year and the attempts to pass a state constitutional amendment to allow both unlimited abortion and unrestricted gender affirmation surgery, regardless of age. (Note I didn’t say that psychiatrists held the more extreme views, only that many support those positions.)
There’s no reason to push for such things as a baseline for society unless the goal is to make it easy to push people in that direction.
However, I can see that the echo chamber here doesn’t really want contrary opinions. So many of you would rather rant against “MAGots” or lean hard into the idea that Liberals are inherently “smart” while Conservatives are “Archie Bunker” types. Hawkgrrrl asked for discussion, but you don’t want that. You want to feel superior to others instead. Fine. Feel superior all you want. It doesn’t affect me.
With that, I’m done. My own mental health is more important than “winning” arguments on the Internet.
@ Observer: Way to (not) engage in the discussion by painting the others as the problem and then taking the ball and walking home. Lovely.
Care to address actual facts? No. Care to engage with strawman fallacy? Sure thing.
“It doesn’t affect me,” followed by “My own mental health is more important.”
Literally can’t even make this stuff up. Give a man a rope . . .
Religion has had a problem of taking itself too seriously and taking the Bible too literally, and then fighting against science when it points out reality. We could go back to Galileo for an example, or look at flat earthers today. Psychology is a (soft) science and as most fields of science it gets things wrong and has to make corrections. Those who fear science will prove them wrong use those mistakes and adjustments to try to prove that science doesn’t know what it is talking about. We saw this with Covid. Science was learning about this new disease right along with the rest of us. But those on the right were using mistakes to say that we shouldn’t listen to the doctors and stop meeting in groups and infecting each other, or wear masks and instead we should drink bleach or take horse medicine or a dozen other stupid ideas.
So of course religion will fight against psychology because psychology is saying that Bronze Age prophets might not know all there is to know about human behavior. It is exactly the same thing with people from the Bronze Age thinking the world was flat with a big dome over it, and thinking the sun revolves around the earth rather than that we see the sun come up and move across the sky because the earth spins on its axis.
So, during the Bronze Age having lots of babies was important so one group had enough warriors to protect the group from other groups attacking and taking their land. So, anything that prevented those babies was an abomination. Now that 80% of babies don’t die before the age of 5, we can reassess the need for all those babies. Maybe “spilling seed on the ground” (seed being a man’s sperm) is not something that should get a man executed, and just maybe what the Bible says isn’t all straight from God’s mouth, but was a good rule for the life people led back in the Bronze Age. So, when psychology finds that it is the guilt over masturbation that is harmful and not the behavior itself, religion feels that it has been attacked, because “the Bible says”.
Grizzerbear55’s second comment about how this used to be a great site and now it’s not matches the exact conversation happening in real time across several Mormon blogs (ie the bloggernacle) with respect to the faith community that created these online communities.
FWIW, when I stopped attending our faith’s religious services, I didn’t call people names on my way out the door. But hey, choices get made.
Psychology has a set of ethics. And the way the right talks is a whole bunch of psychologists going against those ethics, so, no it isn’t happening like Observer accuses that counselors “push” children into transitioning. A competent counselor will not push the client into any decision—which was why I could never work at LDS F S, because they require their counselors to violate those ethics and push people to stay married and stay in the church. It is religion that violates the ethics of counseling by “encouraging” the client to obey religious directions instead of finding their own solution. The ethics of a competent counselor actually forbids this pushing of one direction, whether it is transitioning, divorcing, or leaving a church. We are taught to let the client act within their own values. For example, as an atheist a counselor should never advise/push/lead/or try to influence the client to abandon their religion. It is the counselor’s job to act as a mirror and let the client figure out their own life and what is good for them. So, a counselor’s “crime” is not pushing transitioning, but the crime the right can’t stand is that they allow it, instead of acting all horrified about it.
For example, my daughter is lesbian. I allow her to make her own decision about who she should love and did not cut her out of my life when she came out. I did support her in her choice, but it was her choice. This is how any loving parent acts if they don’t want their child to hate them. But, that was not how Elder Oaks says a “good Mormon” parent should act. My daughter in law had her parents act that way and it hurt her terribly. They refused to ever let her wife in their house and and they talked to her siblings about what a bad person she was and the horrible mistake she made by being born in a way her religion thinks is a sin. They were just trying to follow Elder Oaks advice and ended up shattering their family. They still have one child 20 years later who refuses to see them because that child knows their love is conditional.
Psychology attempts to give power to the individual to run their own life and religion hates that because religion wants to be able to control that person’s life. A competent psychologist doesn’t take control over the person’s life, but tries to teach them how to make choices in their own best interest. But religion does see their own power diminished by psychology and of course they hate it.
Observer, I copied what you wrote, asked you for the source, and then shared my personal experience on the topic. I never mentioned MAGA and I did not even mention the words liberal or conservative. Your experience is not my experience so I asked for more information. It appears that several follow up comments did the same.
Your response admits that your information is based on a state meeting and not actually based on your lived experience with transgender individuals. We asked; you responded. Thank you. That doesn’t mean you won and I lost or vice versa. It means we each shared how we came to different conclusions about the motives of transgender parents.
But then you bring up echo chambers and needing to preserve your mental health. Of course you absolutely should preserve your mental health. I’m struggling to understand asking people to stand behind what they say makes this an echo chamber. Words matter and all that.
As I noted in my comment to grizzerbear55, it’s not lost on me that several Mormon blogs are currently discussing how the divide between individual values and the faith community’s values has shifted far enough that many of us, myself included, stopped attending church services as a result. In so leaving, I didn’t get up in testimony meeting and call Sunday School an echo chamber or how I’m sick of members ranting against rainbow flags and Hollywood elites or talk about the smugness of the one true church rhetoric. You do you.
Good on you for preserving your mental health.
Observer, 1) you appealed to anecdotes to show that the are intelligent conservatives. I think statistics are superior to anecdotes. So you have statistical studies that show that conservatives are more educated than liberals? 2) Conservatives aren’t a race or ethnic identity and yet you seem to act as if they are. I can’t tell who a conservative is simply by looking at them. A conservative is simply someone who likely believes a lot of bad ideas: the COVID vaccines kills people, Trump won in 2020, Trump was a good businessman and therefore good for the economy, Trump is honest, the administrative state should be destroyed, social security should be dismantled, globalists are lurking in the shadows and will destroy the US, we should bomb and invade Iran, Obamacare should be dismantled, trans people are evil, humans don’t contribute to climate change, we should keep drilling and relying on oil without any alternatives in mind, no vision for how to protect the environment, liberals are to blame for California fires, immigrants are causing an increase in crime and eating people’s cats and dogs, etc. People can change bad ideas. They can’t change their skin color.
To say that it is “bigoted” to say conservatives are less educated confirms what I said: conservatives love crying victim and pretending that they are a protected class.
Observer,
One bystander to another, I agree with you that being transgender is somewhat of a trend right now. But so is having Tourette’s, or BPD, or any other disorder TikTok glamorizes. This doesn’t make these disorders any less valid, though; in the case of gender dysphoria lack of personal rights when care is most effective is far more dire of an issue than perceived over-diagnosis.
“Reality has a well-known liberal bias.” ~ UNK
Have had interactions with several therapists in relation to various issues members of my family were dealing with. I would say the success rate with them was about 50/50. Some really thought they knew it all. The worst was a Columbia University-educated Psychologist. Knew a lot, but didn’t see the forest through the trees in some situations. I find the below to be very accurate:
I have 15 years of therapy to my credit, none of it with an LDS therapist. I have many good friends who are LDS therapists and I appreciate the relationships but because of the relationships would not see them professionally. All of the therapists I have seen professionally, and all of the LDS therapists I know well enough to form an opinion, are ethical in the sense that they work for the benefit of their client–functional, healthy, growth-oriented–and not with a fixed or predetermined or outside influenced end result in mind. As a result, I tend to think in terms of ethics and not conservative/liberal, LDS/non-LDS, or religious/non-religious distinctions.
When I started into therapy I would not have dreamed of talking to an LDS therapist. Now I know better, and would absolutely demand the ethical approach without regard to religious background, and then look for certain specialties and experiences that would most benefit me. (For example, at an important stage of my life I found a therapist who was sensitive to and understanding of religion particularly helpful, without regard to their personal beliefs.)
With respect to the OP’s focus on conservatives and therapy, I believe (60/40 confidence level) that everyone well advised would look for an ethical practice for themself. When it’s about me, when it’s my own therapist, I want them to be all about me, and I suspect everybody is the same. I doubt liberal/conservative is a significant differentiator in that context. I believe any liberal/conservative divide is more likely to show up in who looks for therapy for themself, in the first place, and what kind of referral one makes for someone else. In other words, my belief (or my bias) is that conservative people are (a) relatively less likely to seek out therapy (but want the best ethical practice when they do), but (b) relatively more likely to refer a friend or associate to an end-results therapist in the sense of “fixing” them rather than “helping” or “healing” them.
Finally, I think there is an irreconcilable tension between an ethical practice and what LDS church leaders want. I know LDS therapists who go about their business quietly, one client at a time, and are not likely to come into conflict. But I question whether it’s possible to be public and gain a following in an ethical way without running into conflict sooner or later.
Christian: “Finally, I think there is an irreconcilable tension between an ethical practice and what LDS church leaders want.” Yes, this is certainly my conclusion as well, and I think the Hamakers’ description of their experience illustrates the tension perfectly: say what you will behind closed doors, but if you don’t pretend in public that we’re right, we won’t tolerate it. I have known quite a few LDS therapists over the years who also uphold the ethics of psychology, but they weren’t podcasters and they also were very circumspect (gagged?) when it came to what they were willing to say at church about things like homosexuality, masturbation, and so-called porn addiction.
Christian and Hawk, it is that question of ethics and how LDS counselors are supposed to put church before professional ethics that made me know I could never work at LDS FS. Clients have to sign a form giving up their right to confidentiality and everything they say can be reported back to their bishop. Counselors cannot even support a woman in her choice to divorce. Divorce must be discouraged even when it is the best thing for the individual. You cannot explore doubts or even talk about problems with the church without everything going back to your bishop. Now, for some issues that isn’t a problem. But your counselor will report to your bishop anything that could impact your “worthiness” as far as church goes.
professional ethics say the counselor keeps their opinion, their values, their beliefs and religion strictly out of the relationship. The counselor simply has too much power in that relationship, and yet the counselor can never know all the things that a good decision needs to be based on. The counselor’s job is to help the client figure things out, not to solve their problems for them. So, to support them while they solve their own problems.
Religion teaches that they have the solution. So, rather than supporting you in finding your own solution, the religious counselor wants you to accept the religion’s recommended solution.
This is what psychology has against conversion therapy. It has a predetermined solution, determined by religion ahead of time. Psychology is a soft science and any form of science is against proving a predetermined solution. And conversion therapy has been proven in controlled experiments to do more damage than good, so not only does it defy the ethics of psychological counseling, it has scientifically been proven harmful.
Anna: I’m astonished that LDS FS requires patients to waive confidentiality. That’s extremely unethical, and you’ve described the problem perfectly. All the LDS people I’ve known who were psychologists were in private practice, and now I know why!
The thing that’s so frustrating about discussions like this is the assumption that traditional ideological labels have any meaning in the era of Trump.
Take me, for example. I’m a lifelong Reagan conservative. I believe in free markets and free trade. I believe in fiscal responsibility and decry deficit spending. I came of age when conservatives were (rightly, in my mind) denouncing Bill Clinton’s lack of character and personal integrity and considered him a disgrace to the office he held.
This put me squarely in the mainstream of the Republican Party for all of my life – until 2016.
Now, “conservatives” despise free markets and free trade. They think punitive tariffs, even on our closest allies, are all kinds of awesome. Reagan is rolling over in his grave.
As for fiscal responsibility, “conservatives” didn’t seem to notice that Trump added more to the national debt in his first term than “tax and spend Democrat” Barack Obama did in two terms, and that, even with these stupid and illegal slash-and-burn DOGE purges that are saving no money whatsoever, Trump, in his second term, is push us toward astronomical, unbailoutable levels of debt that will result in hyperinflation and total economic collapse.
As for character and personal integrity? From the convicted felon/adjudicated rapist/insurrectionist who tried to overthrow a free and fair election? Bill Clinton looks quaint in comparison.
So even though I still believe in everything I believed when I was a Republican – a party I left the day Trump secured the 2016 nomination – I’m considered something of a wild-eyed liberal these days, especially in the Church. There is nothing traditionally conservative about either Trump or his followers. There is no conservative ideology animating the GOP that exists independent of the shifting whims of Donald Trump, and there is no traditionally conservative idea that can’t be instantly jettisoned in slavish devotion to the Dear Leader.
Certainly education, or a lack thereof, cannot be dismissed as a factor in the total abandonment of principle at the core of the GOP. What truly concerns me, however, is that a church which boasts of having unique powers of discernment due to exclusive access to the divine gift of the Holy Ghost has had absolutely no problem now embracing everything they angrily decried less than a decade ago.
It’s nothing but pure tribalism. Trump hates who they hate and furthermore gives them license to express that hate in ways that would have been unthinkable in any previous administration, Republican or Democrat. This stands as the biggest indictment against the Church’s claim to have any claim to being the only true and living church on the face of the whole earth.
It has nothing to do with conservative vs. liberal. It’s good vs. evil. And by embracing the evil that is Donald Trump, the Church, collectively if not necessarily individually, is very much on the wrong side.
Reaganite Progmo. Respect. You seem like the type of person I would disagree with on a number of issues, but we could actually have a conversation. Stuff such as Trump winning the 2020 election or the Jan. 6ers being peaceful or the vaccines being dangerous are not within the realm of what I regard as legitimate disagreement. Across the board tariffs for Canadian (Canadian!) goods being good for the US economy is similarly in that same realm. True madness.
Brad D., I think you would be surprised at how much we agree, but even if you weren’t, we could still have a very productive discussion, because we share a common set of facts.
Arguably the worst think MAGA has done is silo people into alternate realities. The world where Trump won in 2020 and Jan. 6 was peaceful and beautiful and vaccines are more deadly than COVID bears no resemblance whatsoever to the world you and I and all rational people live in, so trying to engage with someone who refuses to acknowledge that the sky is blue is an entirely futile effort.
The vaccine issue is especially problematic in the Church, where MAGA Mormons believe Trump over a prophet, seer, and revelator saying the COVID vaccine was “a literal godsend.”
Reaganite ProgMo, Once upon a time, a very long time ago, that is to say 10 years ago, I had no doubt that my Republican friends, wanted the same things for our country as I did.That desire might be encapsulated in MLK’s famous speech, as well in the idea that prosperity raised all boats. In that statement was a belief that boats meant education, science, trade, health, and other things that make a society vibrant. I remember when Republicans were in the forefront of Civil Rights, environmental protection, and, yes, health care. At that time my friends and I vigorously discussed how to achieve these goals. We had POLICY disagreement but never, ever thought that our goals were different. Now, I can literally count on one hand friends who are Republican. The minute some obscure, ludicrous conspiracy springs from their lips, I know that our friendship is dead. No amount of date will change their minds. Their drives are completely emotional. Recently, a member of my family told me that workers at Social Security were putting cash in file cabinets! She depends totally on SSA and yet doesn’t know that the checks are not within the reach, either actually or metaphorically of the workers in the office!
IMHO the Republican Party had a long history of being in the forefront of policies that, indeed, made America great.
Not so much anymore.
If I were going to boil things down, there are a couple of theories of what’s going on here:
1) authoritarian control. All Churches have limits on what ideas they will tolerate (even left-leaning Churches do), and every congregation has orthodoxy police in its ranks. I’ve often looked at Catholicism as being more secure in its positions because I know so many Catholics who hold and express opposing viewpoints (e.g. regarding abortion, divorce, or homosexuality). But I’m not Catholic, and as I age I can see that not all Catholic congregations are equally tolerant of these differing viewpoints, just as they vary within the Church. Catholics telling me (a non-Catholic) that they don’t agree with The Church is low stakes to them.
I suspect the Hamakers encountered a particularly orthodox local leadership team, one that saw value in their advice, but also a threat to be dealt with. I’m not sure whether they thought they were protecting the congregation or church leadership. Plus, the less skilled a leader is (and we have a lot of less skilled leaders due to the the extremely limited eligible pool in any given ward, especially with no women being considered), the more likely that leader will do a poor job handling tattlers. There are two opposite adages about these people: the squeaky wheel gets the grease (which is what I usually see with low skill bishops) or the nail that sticks up gets the hammer. I guess in the second adage, maybe the one being tattled on is the one getting the hammer. Maybe the tattlers are the ones who should get the hammer. I know from decades of business leadership that you should always be skeptical of tattle-tales because they have hidden motives, and tattling is both self-serving and anti-social. When hyperbole is being used (e.g. no actual harm is being done–just theoretical harm)–then take it with a giant grain of salt.
2) Political majority / negative politicization. On Dave B’s thread we’ve been talking about the progressives who persist in attending their wards perceiving political talk that is distasteful to them, but noting that those who lean conservative don’t notice it and aren’t bothered by it because they more or less feel the same way and think everyone does. For example, in the 80s, nobody thought twice about using the R slur or calling something you didn’t like “gay” because everyone was talking that way. It wasn’t right, and it wasn’t good. Certainly if you were gay it wasn’t good to hear it used to mean anything “bad” or embarrassing. That’s how it feels as a progressive or liberal in a Mormon congregation, the jarring dog whistles of conservatives using low-key slurs against liberals or progressives, assuming everyone agrees with their pet conspiracy theories or that we all agree that the world is going to hell in a handbasket, that godless atheists run the entertainment industry, that welfare queens are taking your hard earned money, that the poor just don’t want to work, that the kids today have no respect for authority, that social media is rotting their brains, that people want handouts, that there’s a gay agenda, that gender dysphoria is a fad, etc. etc. A lot of what we are talking about here that conservatives find objectionable in psychology boils down to culture war stuff more than actual political views (well, except the aggressive national defense stuff).
Having read this article earlier today (and countless others like it over time), I’m not convinced that social media brain rot is merely a conservative dog whistle.
At any rate, I wanted to address the claim that the Hamakers “see [the church’s investigation] starting with earnest local leaders in a very conservative area of the church.” I served there as a missionary within the last decade, and—granting the limited perspective that comes with that—it seemed no different than the places I’ve lived along the Mormon Corridor. It’s a conservative area of the United States, like the Mormon Corridor, but I couldn’t detect a different vibe.
That’s neither here nor there (just wanted to add my two cents).
It’s possible that the well intended member who wanted to talk to your son thought that a good kick in the pants talking to was what he needed; because that’s what worked for that member at some point in their life. This happens due to an ignorance about how different many of us are. What one group of people find inspiring and encouraging, another finds kind of meh, and the other group finds it discouraging and disheartening. The people who were inspired can’t wrap their minds around the idea that others don’t find it inspiring.
Given that the church has official support channels to trained professionals – instead of just relying on lay members with callings – shows to me that the church sees a need. Even if the church doesn’t officially teach that you are failing if you need therapy, lots of members are unofficially self-teaching themselves that. Probably based on the idea that the church is supposed to be a place for spiritual/emotional rejuvenation, so if that’s not working for me, something must be broken with me.
My wife went to three different therapists which were in-network with my insurance. She would quit them once they suggested that watching some porn would help her out. Eventually she got approval for an LDS therapist, but that one was out of network, and we weren’t able to keep affording visits.
If you read an article that says something like, “Professionals declare that 40% of the population have a mental illness” you conclude that mental illness, or mentally unfit, is a boy crying wolf situation, and the professionals are chicken little’s who should be ignored.
The institutional ‘Christians’ who still vocally and politically support Donald Trump tend to see him as literally Godsent. Many, including Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene and her reporter boyfriend Brian Glenn, also perceive Trump’s presidency as divinely-intended punishment against liberals. (By institutional Christianity, I mean those ‘Christians’ most resistant to Christ’s fundamental teachings of non-violence, compassion and non-wealth.)
If God really is as vengefully angry, even seemingly blood-thirsty, as institutional Christianity generally portrays Him to be, is anyone — including supposed ardent followers or conservative Bible believers — truly safe or really ‘saved’? One could reasonably theorize that He’d be especially peeved by those self-professed Christians He’d (likely rightfully) deem as fake or frauds. After all, Jesus, a.k.a. God incarnate, was about non-violence, genuine compassion, love and non-wealth. His teachings and practices epitomize so much of the primary component of socialism — do not hoard gratuitous wealth in the midst of great poverty.
Yet, they are not practiced by a significant number of ‘Christians’, likely including many who really seem to worship Donald Trump, a callous man who stands for very little or nothing Jesus taught and represents. … The Biblical Jesus would not have rolled his eyes and sighed: ‘Oh well, I’m against everything the politician stands for, but what can you do when you dislike even more what his political competition stands for?’
… I watched a televised documentary a few years ago about Michel de Nostredame and his seemingly often prophetic quatrains. Amongst them were disturbing prophesies apparently making references to the first [Napoleon], second [Hitler] and third anti-Christs, the latter having yet to come and do his immense damage. One of the Nostradamus scholars interviewed for the documentary said the writings suggest the third anti-Christ will originate from what’s now the United States, though he’ll be of European ancestry.
Many people find Trump to be the very unstable, vengefully angry and self-centered/-serving type willing to take the world for a most brutal spin, perhaps even for the sake of him making it into the historical-‘greatness’ books. If anything, he’s evidence of a great evil being unleashed onto a largely powerless world.
Yet, early on Nov.6, Trump publicly stated: “Many people have told me that God spared my life [from two assassination attempts] for a reason. And that reason was to save our country and to restore America to greatness.” … Then again, Adolf Hitler also escaped assassination attempts made against him, most notably that foiled effort called the July Plot or Operation Valkyrie.