“So the American Psychological Association (APA), the largest organization of psychologists in the US (122,000 members) ran an article in July, classifying groups/individuals who oppose capitalism (i.e., communism, socialism, or anarchism)—as terrorists
https://t.co/9u7TA8XeoJ”
I think the problem people see is more with creating an equivalence of political opinion and mental health.
The full quote about anti-capitalism doesn’t say anything about what makes someone an extremist. It doesn’t say anything about rational criticisms and irrational ones it just relates political attitudes. It doesn’t say anything about how we would separate rational criticism from extremism. That is a problem, no?
The take home message doesn’t help at all when a dissident deals with an oppressive system. E.g. how would that message be applied in Germany in 1933? Or 1939? Or 1942? I don’t think it can at all. How would it be applied to say US intervention, or colonisation? Again, I don’t think the message would hold up.
Do you think that the scientific method is applied here in an appropriate way?
First i wanted to adress that the title of this post is bullshit. The article is merely about psychologist telling other psychologist how they are relevant to understand radicalization.
You’re right about the quote it’s just explaining what left extremism is about there is a paragraph for the 3 identified category : religious, left and right.
The take home message was about the article and this ill-informed post.
Now for my opinion: I don’t think you should expect anything about a discipline which classify deviance in a big red book with statistical procedure (see DSM).
I think the problem people see is more with creating an equivalence of political opinion and mental health.
The full quote about anti-capitalism doesn’t say anything about what makes someone an extremist. It doesn’t say anything about rational criticisms and irrational ones it just relates political attitudes. It doesn’t say anything about how we would separate rational criticism from extremism. That is a problem, no?
The take home message doesn’t help at all when a dissident deals with an oppressive system. E.g. how would that message be applied in Germany in 1933? Or 1939? Or 1942? I don’t think it can at all. How would it be applied to say US intervention, or colonisation? Again, I don’t think the message would hold up.
Do you think that the scientific method is applied here in an appropriate way?
Thanks for answering.
First i wanted to adress that the title of this post is bullshit. The article is merely about psychologist telling other psychologist how they are relevant to understand radicalization.
You’re right about the quote it’s just explaining what left extremism is about there is a paragraph for the 3 identified category : religious, left and right.
The take home message was about the article and this ill-informed post.
Now for my opinion: I don’t think you should expect anything about a discipline which classify deviance in a big red book with statistical procedure (see DSM).