APS did not cave to a woke mop. Here is their explanation for their decision. Race had nothing to do with it. You may not believe it, but now you have to accuse them of lying rather than acting inappropriately.
Thanks for pointing this out. You are absolutely correct. APS now stands accused of lying, a further serious violation of their duty to maintain and enforce fairness, transparency, rationality, objectivity and due process in the scientific field they claim to represent. Their claim that the racist allegations against Fiedler had nothing at all to do with his instant dismissal lacks all credibility. Can you really believe that identical allegations without the racist accusation would result in a similar instant action? If you made similar claims against an editor handling your paper, do you seriously believe that APS would have acted with the same haste in dismissing him/her? If you truly believe this, you are either naïve or profoundly biased. The woke activism of APS, and the wanton destruction of the career and reputation of a decent and highly respected scientist represents a complete betrayal of APS’ mission that has brought shame and disrepute on the field of psychology.
Its worse than that. APS's "explanations" aren't. Explanations that is. As explanations, they rate right up there with Soviet show trials and Kafka's The Trial (which I will quote extensively when I unpack this in two upcoming essays here).
Yes, Virginia, APS either caved to the woke mob, or, perhaps, APS leadership *represents* the woke mob. Its one or the other. Or both.
Working on a review of the psychology of reciprocal radicalization (extremist groups feed off of each other). This text from the draft somehow seems fitting here:
"Antagonistic identity transformation refers to the idea that hostility toward the outgroup becomes a central feature of one’s ingroup identity. Threats from the outgroup become exaggerated through excess reliance on ingroup echo chambers – group members frequently hear about the threats and evils of the other side primarily on the basis of information and propaganda produced by their own side. This contributes to a cycle of increasingly hostile responses to, not the actual threat, if any, by the other side, but exaggerations of those threats."
Dr Joachim Funke, Professor of Psychology (retired), Heidelberg University
Dr. Matt Motyl, Fellow and Research Scientist
Dr Carole Sherwood, Clinical Psychologist
Dr Kirsty Miller
Lecturer
APS did not cave to a woke mop. Here is their explanation for their decision. Race had nothing to do with it. You may not believe it, but now you have to accuse them of lying rather than acting inappropriately.
https://mailchi.mp/psychologicalscience.org/important-update-from-aps-297637
Dear Ulrich,
Thanks for pointing this out. You are absolutely correct. APS now stands accused of lying, a further serious violation of their duty to maintain and enforce fairness, transparency, rationality, objectivity and due process in the scientific field they claim to represent. Their claim that the racist allegations against Fiedler had nothing at all to do with his instant dismissal lacks all credibility. Can you really believe that identical allegations without the racist accusation would result in a similar instant action? If you made similar claims against an editor handling your paper, do you seriously believe that APS would have acted with the same haste in dismissing him/her? If you truly believe this, you are either naïve or profoundly biased. The woke activism of APS, and the wanton destruction of the career and reputation of a decent and highly respected scientist represents a complete betrayal of APS’ mission that has brought shame and disrepute on the field of psychology.
Its worse than that. APS's "explanations" aren't. Explanations that is. As explanations, they rate right up there with Soviet show trials and Kafka's The Trial (which I will quote extensively when I unpack this in two upcoming essays here).
Yes, Virginia, APS either caved to the woke mob, or, perhaps, APS leadership *represents* the woke mob. Its one or the other. Or both.
Working on a review of the psychology of reciprocal radicalization (extremist groups feed off of each other). This text from the draft somehow seems fitting here:
"Antagonistic identity transformation refers to the idea that hostility toward the outgroup becomes a central feature of one’s ingroup identity. Threats from the outgroup become exaggerated through excess reliance on ingroup echo chambers – group members frequently hear about the threats and evils of the other side primarily on the basis of information and propaganda produced by their own side. This contributes to a cycle of increasingly hostile responses to, not the actual threat, if any, by the other side, but exaggerations of those threats."
I was just reminded of this:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/rabble-rouser/202009/my-newest-diversity-equity-and-inclusion-statement
1400 academics have demonstrated that they would be unfit to take my course on radicalization.
Kristine Danowski, MEd, MS, PhD(c)
Retired
Prof Christopher Rhoads, Educational Psychology, University of Connecticut
Smriti Mehta
PhD Student, Department of Psychology
UC Berkeley
Michael Lewis
PhD Candidate - Information Systems
University of Houston
Bradley Campbell
Professor of Sociology
California State University, Los Angeles
Rachel Hartman, UNC Chapel Hill
PD Dr. A. Timur Sevincer
Interim Professorship of Psychology
Leuphana University Lüneburg
Robert H. Guinn
Professor of Chemistry
College of the Desert
Coel Hellier,
Professor of Astrophysics,
Keele University (UK).
Dr. Ruud Custers, Utrecht University
Prof. Thomas Müller-Gronbach
University of Passau, Germany