Something went wrong. Try again later

JasonR86

This user has not updated recently.

10468 449 101 111
Forum Posts Wiki Points Following Followers

A Cautionary Tale: People Can Use Psychology In Gross Ways

Psychologytoday is a website that in theory is kind of cool. My blogs where I offer FAQs regarding mental health therapy and the process of it is in a similar category. Basically it provides a resource for clients and those interested in psychology to learn about what is happening in psychology currently (today some might say).

But because this is geared towards a more casual audience I get a little irritated when writers on there do really gross things. Like this blog, linked from an article on the FRONT PAGE OF THE SITE!!!!, where the very important but apparently amazingly out of touch Philip Zimbardo (he created the Stanford Prison Experiment) writes that men and boys are no longer turning into 'guys' or adult men.

So first he's defining what a 'guy/adult male' is. Which is gross. There is no definition. There is no ideal. People can be whatever they want to be. Putting one's own definition of anything relating to another is mistake #1 in working with clients. You don't do that shit. Ever. It's disgusting. People are whoever they wish to be period the end.

Then he explains that men aren't men anymore because of excessive porn and online games. Basically men are falling behind women in regard to social skills, leadership capabilities, emotional availability, you name it men are lacking. So excessive porn use could be an issue in regards to social ability. Though it's probably waaaaay less often then he thinks. But online games? Really? Offline games maybe you could make a case. But online games? Nah son.

Also, just in the nit and gritty of his blog and the article on the front page, he cites none of the sources he claims are scientific fact, claims research conclusions are the same thing as absolute truth which is nonsense, and basically any symposium, which his blog is an overview of his symposium (and a book he's selling), tends to ignore research that disagrees with the point of the symposium/book.

So, just keep in mind, if someone claims to have some sort psychological fact behind it is often biased as shit and often are doing some gross, fucked up shit and using their name and credentials.

27 Comments