Social Jordan Peterson Savagely Rips Apart New APA Guides on Toxic Mascuilinity

[Islam Imamate]

That was for the psychological adjustment, not the academic performance and other markers.

But you are right, its not conclusive.

If they were trying to measure psychological adjustment don't you think they should've measured the rate of mental illness? Seems like an important dimensions of psychological adjustment.

 

[Islam Imamate]

@Kafir-kun

Here is another

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/adopting-reason/201611/kids-can-thrive-gay-parents

Well, at least that one also includes teacher reports which is better than nothing. But of course its still far from conclusive on its own, which is why the article tries to lend legitimacy to its conclusions by appealing to the 2005 APA briefing. Notice how often that briefing is cited, as if it conclusively settled the debate, without any examination of the sources cited there within. This is why the political statements by the APA have consequences, they are not seen as political by the wider society.

In 2005, the American Psychological Association (APA) issued an official brief on lesbian and gay parenting. This brief included the assertion: “Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents” (p. 15). The present article closely examines this assertion and the 59 published studies cited by the APA to support it. Seven central questions address: (1) homogeneous sampling, (2) absence of comparison groups, (3) comparison group characteristics, (4) contradictory data, (5) the limited scope of children’s outcomes studied, (6) paucity of long-term outcome data, and (7) lack of APA-urged statistical power. The conclusion is that strong assertions, including those made by the APA, were not empirically warranted. Recommendations for future research are offered.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000580

 

[Rod1]

Well, at least that one also includes teacher reports which is better than nothing. But of course its still far from conclusive on its own, which is why the article tries to lend legitimacy to its conclusions by appealing to the 2005 APA briefing. Notice how often that briefing is cited, as if it conclusively settled the debate, without any examination of the sources cited there within. This is why the political statements by the APA have consequences, they are not seen as political by the wider society.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000580

Wouldnt the null hypothesis be such that the sex of the parents is irrelevant? Shouldnt the side saying that fatherlesness is the cause prove a causative correlation?

So far there is no evidence that kids from lesbian couples suffer from the same problems given by kids with no father.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Wouldnt the null hypothesis be such that the sex of the parents is irrelevant? Shouldnt the side saying that fatherlesness is the cause prove a causative correlation?

So far there is no evidence that kids from lesbian couples suffer from the same problems given by kids with no father.

Sure that's the null hypothesis, not saying it shouldn't be. But what the APA is doing is not merely asserting that as the null hypothesis, it is attempting to make the claim that the issue is settled by the science but doing so on the basis of poor quality studies that don't even meet its own standards. This has consequences as the APA is seen as an authority, as evidenced by the fact that both the articles you posted cite that 2005 brief.

All I'm saying is that given the poor quality of the studies cited by the APA the question is not settled the way the APA wants people to believe it is. I'm also saying this is politically motivated, not motivated by the science, and that this should make us skeptical of the APA and we shouldn't take what it says for granted.

 

[Headkicktoleg]

This toxic masculinity stuff has been one of the more obvious attempts to paint regular people as the bad guy to make some small group of people who can't control their emotions feel better.

 

[Rod1]

Sure that's the null hypothesis, not saying it shouldn't be. But what the APA is doing is not merely asserting that as the null hypothesis, it is attempting to make the claim that the issue is settled by the science but doing so on the basis of poor quality studies that don't even meet its own standards. This has consequences as the APA is seen as an authority, as evidenced by the fact that both the articles you posted cite that 2005 brief.

All I'm saying is that given the poor quality of the studies cited by the APA the question is not settled the way the APA wants people to believe it is. I'm also saying this is politically motivated, not motivated by the science, and that this should make us skeptical of the APA and we shouldn't take what it says for granted.

Indeed, but neither is the causative correlation between fatherlesness and anti-social behaviour.

 

[lfd0311]

As i pointed out, kids growing up in lesbian homes dont suffer the same negative aspects as fatherless kids.

Also, in my understanding, in a lot of patriarchal societies, fathers dont do much rearing if at all until he boy is already a grown up.

I'm sure that's empirical evidence for that too right Rod? That double mother households are actually better?

Secondly, you clearly don't have kids, do you?

 

[lfd0311]

Psychologist: I'm gonna study how the kids of lesbians turn out. Hey lesbians, how are your kids?

Lesbian moms: They're pretty good

Psychologist: Nice


This is hardly the only study to do this, if you look at the APA's 2005 brief on homosexual parenting(mentioned in your article) many of the studies rely simply on the reporting of the parent to measure the outcome in addition to several other reoccurring problems with that research like small samples sizes, unrepresentative samples, and in some cases even a lack of a control. As a guy who graduated with a degree in psychology I'm going to cosign @Zankou's claim that psychologists are terrible scientists. The APA has shown itself willing to take politically convenient but scientifically weak positions.

Never mind that kids in this study are still just that, kids.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Indeed, but neither is the causative correlation between fatherlesness and anti-social behaviour.

My understanding is that the evidence suggests that single parent homes are the problem, though its more often than not single mothers being studied, and that its a multivariate issue. So sure, I'm not going to cosign Peterson's claim necessarily as much as I am just casting doubt on the APA's.

I'm sure that's empirical evidence for that too right Rod? That double mother households are actually better?

The study he cited is kind of garbage tbh

Secondly, you clearly don't have kids, do you?

He has mentioned having one young child in the past.

Never mind that kids in this study are still just that, kids.

Actually they followed most of the families across the 25 year period so the kids did grow up during the study, its just that they only used only metric(parent reports) that honestly should not be trusted on its own.

 

[lfd0311]

I’m not sure that’s his point. His primary point is that male aggression isn’t really ‘learned’ at all, but rather inherent from biological inception, and that the APAs basic premise is thus fictional. What is learned is how to moderate and control inherent male aggression. Treating masculinity like a pure extrinsic cultural imposition that can be exorcised by cultural or psychological action is, from that perspective, ass-backwards ideological fantasy.

His point, if you're familiar with more of his work, is that while men may be more physically aggressive than women are, nobody measures the ways that women are aggressive towards people, so physical aggression is the only thing that's measurable. He believes people are aggressive. We're socialized to be aggressive in different ways.

 

[Travis17]

Remember that cat calling video that went viral? And then it was called racist because all the calling was done by POC?

Yeah. She walked around Harlem mostly to get most of that footage and most of the video was black people with a couple Hispanics "catcalling" her. No white guys. That's what made the Gillette ad even funnier as it was 2 instances of black guys stopping white guys from "catcalling" girls by simply talking to them. No "Hey babies" or anything like in that other video.

 

[Rod1]

I'm sure that's empirical evidence for that too right Rod? That double mother households are actually better?

Secondly, you clearly don't have kids, do you?

Better than fatherless households? yes

1.- I already provided 2 studies that shows that there is no difference between kids adopted by gay or heterosexual parents.

2.- I have a daughter.

 

[Rod1]

My understanding is that the evidence suggests that single parent homes are the problem, though its more often than not single mothers being studied, and that its a multivariate issue. So sure, I'm not going to cosign Peterson's claim necessarily as much as I am just casting doubt on the APA's.

Its most likely as i said that the troubles associated with single parents and the extra effort required by the single parent to be the culprit.

You simply dont become a single parent due to choice.

Actually they followed most of the families across the 25 year period so the kids did grow up during the study, its just that they only used only metric(parent reports) that honestly should not be trusted on its own.

Yet you ignored the second study. The first study shows a bias to lesbian homes (kids grow up better) if you assume that there is a bias then the most likely result is that there is no difference.

And thats normal, in more primitve society rearing kids is a communal, women effort, men are tasked with hunting and training young men, not wasting time rearing children.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Its most likely as i said that the troubles associated with single parents and the extra effort required by the single parent to be the culprit.

You simply dont become a single parent due to choice.

Right, its a multivariate issue as I said and I'm not necessarily taking Peterson's angle here.

Yet you ignored the second study.

No I didn't, I said it was better for not merely relying on parent reports and including teacher ones. That said it is behind a pay wall so I can't evaluate it further though I would doubt its conclusive on its own given how poorly such studies were conducted in the past.

The first study shows a bias to lesbian homes (kids grow up better) if you assume that there is a bias then the most likely result is that there is no difference.

And thats normal, in more primitve society rearing kids is a communal, women effort, men are tasked with hunting and training young men, not wasting time rearing children.

You can believe what you want but the evidence does not strike me as conclusive and I have already explained why.

 

[Travis17]

@Zankou

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...-finds-children-lesbian-parents-may-be-better

So its not really fatherlesness its more about coming from broken homes, being unwanted or 1 parent alone not being enough.

Planned kids from stable lesbian couples seem to be as well adjusted as planned kids from heterosexual couples. And they even showed lower social problems so i guess Peterson is wrong.

Haha reading this article, you can see how full of shit it is.

"The participants were not randomly selected and the information on psychological adjustment was only provided by the mothers. A more comprehensive assessment approach would have included reports from the children themselves and possibly another source like teachers."

There are studies that show two heterosexual parents do better than two lesbian or gay parents. But because there is this agenda to push LGBT in the media by activists, you don't hear from them, and the LGBT activists do everything they can to push the narrative that they are just as capable of raising children as heterosexual parents. Even manipulating studies to gain favorable results.

Here's a study showing they do much worse.

Most of Table 1 fits right in line with traditional beliefs. For instance, those with gay or lesbian parent(s) were the:

• most apt to say they were not exclusively heterosexual,
• most apt to be on welfare,
• least apt to be employed,
• most apt to have gotten a sexually transmitted infection,
• most apt to have recently thought of suicide,
• most apt to report rape,
• most apt to test impulsive,
• most apt to smoke,
• most apt to report heavy TV viewing,
• most apt to have been arrested,
• most apt to have pled guilty to a crime,
• most apt to score high on depression,
• least apt to report being able to depend on others,
• least apt to report having felt secure and safe in their family, and
• most promiscuous

http://www.familyresearchinst.org/2...omosexual-parents-turn-out-the-best-evidence/

We want the best for our kids, so it's a shame when people lie and potentially place kids in homes that will on average give them a worse outcome in life. All so they can feel good, because their self-esteem is wrapped up in how tolerant and progressive they are.

 

[Bullitt68]

That's a blatant mischaracterization of what he himself quoted. The APA says that these young men are less willing to seek mental health treatment. That's a far cry from saying their mental health is destroyed. Its so sensationalistic that I can't believe that he's writing that seriously.

I'm also surprised that he didn't devote any time to the actual treatment that the APA mentioned. Or how the APA suggested that psychologists fight anti-male bias.

While I think that @ben236's post usefully clarifies what specifically Peterson was targeting with the destruction of male mental health bit, I also think that you're right that he hurt his own case by strawmanning the APA document. As you've rightly pointed out, the part that he's attacking should, theoretically, be the part that he would want to single out as potentially useful.

In Peterson's defense, I understand completely and agree entirely with his frustration with the tarring of self-reliance and the problematic extremes to which toxic masculinity bandwagoners seem to want to push things, but trying to grind that ax on that portion of the document was an ill-advised tactic.

My opinion on Peterson is that he began as someone speaking about legitimate issues in a frank way that resonated with an audience. Over time, he's morphed into someone who is telling his audience what they want hear. Like a politician who gradually suborns his principles to those of his donors.

Yeah, I've been getting this vibe a lot myself. This is actually why I liked his conversations with Sam Harris so much, as I was hoping that Sam backing him into corners and forcing him to recognize some of the nonsense that comes out as nonsense would be beneficial moving forward. That didn't really seem to take, though.

And man, how weird is it that we're seeing eye to eye on Peterson?

Also, can anyone really disagree with this?:

The main thrust of the subsequent research is that traditional masculinity—marked by stoicism, competitiveness, dominance and aggression—is, on the whole, harmful.

https://www.apa.org/monitor/2019/01/ce-corner.aspx

The competitiveness part is the only one that's kind of iffy. But I really don't think they mean "get rid of sports, contests, or awards" but rather something like "obsessively comparing yourself to others and trying to be better than them."

There is a logical step from one to the other, but I think the step is SO important that someone like Peterson absolutely is aware of it, he just knows what his audience wants to hear.

In addition to @Zankou's response, I also think that it's worth pointing out that the way that you have to guess what that really means - and, by extension, that there is no discernible reason not to extend it to mean precisely what you're guessing/hoping it doesn't mean - points up the problem that Peterson is rightly highlighting regarding woolly terminology, endless waffling, and politically-motivated cherry-picking.

 

[Rod1]

Right, its a multivariate issue as I said and I'm not necessarily taking Peterson's angle here.

Indeed, so i dont see why its such a controversy that lesbians manage to raise decent kids.

No I didn't, I said it was better for not merely relying on parent reports and including teacher ones. That said it is behind a pay wall so I can't evaluate it further though I would doubt its conclusive on its own given how poorly such studies were conducted in the past.

Nothing in psychology is conclusive, but considering the null hypothesis, its irrelevant whether its conclusive or not. Fatherlesness correlative causation isnt fact either.

You can believe what you want but the evidence does not strike me as conclusive and I have already explained why.

Nope, its not conclusive but it gives us an idea than fatherlesness isnt a causative effect.

 

[Rod1]

Haha reading this article, you can see how full of shit it is.

Same can be said of any psychological study.

Care to prove that lesbian couples perform worse than comparative heterosexual couples?

 

[Rod1]

We want the best for our kids, so it's a shame when people lie and potentially place kids in homes that will on average give them a worse outcome in life. All so they can feel good, because their self-esteem is wrapped up in how tolerant and progressive they are.

You do realize that lesbian have uterus right? thats why i focused on lesbians mainly, because they can rear kids from scratch as opposed to gay males.

 

[Bamboozled]

He doesn't really have a point here at all. Traits that are associated with "toxic masculinity" tend to be traits that stem from a lack of understanding of masculinity. If anything, not having a positive male role model (or any male role model) would increase the likelihood a young man not understanding what proper masculinity looks like.

I think people seem to be offended by the term "toxic masculinity" because they are associating it so directly with healthy masculinity. I think that is what Jordan Peterson is doing here.

For example, good fathers don't teach their kids that catcalling women in the street makes them more of a man. But kids with no positive male role models may think that it shows machismo. That is where the toxic part comes in.

He literally opens with that there is no consensus on what "masculinity ideology" is.

You have no point here at all. Try reading the article.