I am not sure which is more cringey, the litany of erroneous assumptions you splayed out or the act of calling upon the student archetype with the intent of derision. Anti-intellectualism, check. src

Snapshots:

1. This Post - archive.org, megalodon.jp, removeddit.com, archive.is

2. https://www.reddit.com/r/psychology... - archive.org, megalodon.jp, removeddit.com, archive.is

3. 1 hour ago - archive.org, megalodon.jp, removeddit.com, archive.is

4. 2 hours ago - archive.org, megalodon.jp, removeddit.com, archive.is

^{I am a bot. (Info / Contact)}

Although this may seem like a stupid joke, I mean this earnestly: one way is to watch things like Steven Universe. It’s a cartoon. It’s family rated. And Steven’s portrayal of gentle masculinity is radical.

Why do hugbox faggots have such incredible sway and influence on Reddit? IRL nobody is looking to eject their dignity and self-respect at the lightspeed this lot has.

SU is a great show, but I wouldn't use that as an example at all. Steven isn't masculine positive rolemodel. He's a third wave feminist's wet dream on how to raise a male and how to behave.

reddit sees “masculine” and thinks about the people who bully them, and their once abusive and now absent father

The true alphas of the world

Assuming “aggressiveness” is a negative trait suggests someone is not approaching the issue from a value-neutral perspective. It reflects a feminine-positive perspective, which a lot of men rightly reject as biased against them.

I do agree with the guy above you. Reddit is a knitting circle for latte sipping autistic shut-ins, and real life is unrecognizable in comparison.

Exactly. Masculine traits deemed toxic are of a matter of opinion.

"Traditionally masculine men are more likely to engage in risk taking behavior."

Duh, that's what makes them such bad-asses.

It's what got us this far along. You think we'd have made any advances with the modern day quims leading us? We'd still be in caves.

Nah caves are dark and scary. They'd just stay in the trees and fling poo at each other.

Eh, I still do that when I'm bored at weekends.

I think I've come to a powerful realization; performance art is toxic masculinity.

if we're talking about cartoons then this was an interesting stark difference between the first and second Incredibles movie

In the first one, Mr. Incredible and Elastigirl both had relatively equal roles in the story and were both independently competent. In the second one, Bob was barely even a character and was reduced to a babysitter so that Elastigirl could do everything. A lot of writers seem to have the idea that to make one gender look good, you have to make the other one look weak or bad

Alrighty ML, lemme fight you on that Incredibles 2 one

Men are typically, in Hollywood, portrayed as poor fathers. We see the trope where the mom leaves and the dad has control of the kids, but he fails at everything. The dad doesn't know how to be a father, he's comically failing at everything, and he's never given enough credit.

I think, in The Incredibles 2, Bob was a good example of a father who learned, grew, and became competent at what he did. Sure, they gave Elastigirl the spotlight for the early capeshit asskicking, but they gave the family aspect to Bob-and they showed him conquering it. Sure, he was failing at first, didn't know how to do Dash's math homework and having to deal with Violet's outbursts. But he ultimately kept on top of Dash, got Violet her man, and dealt with Jack-jack's powers as he worked as a single father, essentially.

I think they were trying to portray the nuclear family turned on it's head and show it in a positive light. It felt that by the end, Bob was a competent father.

Really my biggest complaint about the movie was that the villian was really easy to guess, really one dimensional, with a weak motive. She felt really generic with a poor focus, and if the writers intended her to look like a badass or w/e, they failed pretty hard.

Ma'am we've been over this before. You need to stop.

I am a bot. Contact for questions

This, but unironically. I can't believe I typed out my thoughts and feelings on something; that's pretty much grounds for necking myself

It bugged me that the movie kept shifting focus. Like you think it's about Elastigirl and Mr. Incredible then they get brainwashed so you think it's about Frozone and the kids then he gets brainwashed and you're like oh I guess it's about the kids now. It didn't seem to have a clear goal in mind which is bizarre considering Brad Bird had 14 years to write it.

And yeah the villain was pretty lame. "I want to make superheroes illegal! Oh wait they're already illegal, so I guess I'll make them....double illegal?". It would have made more sense if the brother was the bad guy and genuinely loved superheroes but created a supervillain to get them back in the limelight instead of his sister creating one to make them look bad.

With regards to the first point, totally agree. I think they wanted to have 3 acts, but they drew the line between them kinda fuckily. (Focus on parents, focus on kids, focus on family). The first one was great because it had a lot of direction, imo, whereas the second one didn't know where it was going. Still enjoyable, but not as good, I thought.

With regards to your second point, I watched this video on how this particular guy would have rewritten screenslaver, and I can't help but think it's extraordinarily cohesive and a pretty good watch. I ended up enjoying the video so much I checked out his 2 hour rewrite of Justice League and ended up disappointing myself that the real movie didn't go that way.

Traditionally masculine takes like aggressiveness and bravery are less important in the modern world. Things are much more peaceful, such that the negative effects of having aggressive and troublesome populations are seen to outweigh the benefits of having good warriors to fight the other tribe. Really in a modern military setting I'd say that discipline is more important than aggressiveness. It's good to have someone that can stick to the damn plan, rather than wandering off on their own and getting their unit killed (thus weakening the overall plan) in a vain search for glory to satisfy their ego.

You aren’t actually in the military are you, or would would understand the term “violence of action” and how fucking important aggressiveness is in fire and maneuver combined arms warfare.

Really in a modern military setting I'd say that discipline is more important than aggressiveness.

You have never been in the military: "Overwhelming violence of action" is held up as the ideal way to break the enemy OODA loop, and taught religiously.

What is OODA?

"Observe, Orient, Decide, Act". It's shorthand for the decisionmaking process. Disrupt that, and the enemy cannot effectively fight.

Gracias.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OODA_loop

You're wrong. The avenues where aggression and bravery can be channeled have shifted, but they're still crucial for a male. I'd even argue that they're more important now because how bland the average man's existence is. You need actual aggression and bravery to stand out because so few men have these positive traits.

I'm sure that's what the folks that give you your daily phytoestrogen injection tell you. Your line of thought seems to be veering dangerous close to "cuckoldry is the utopian state of modern civilization" territory.

SU is a great show

Fuck no.

Overall message aside, It's a very well written show, it balances out the non sequiter of daily life with large scale dramatic moments. The main (even side) characters have a lot of depth, and continue to grow as the show goes on. Tremendous world building with interesting side characters, and packs an emotional punch. My biggest criticism would be the humor. The show is full of entertaining humorous moments, but nothing that would make you roll on the floor laughing.

I would honestly put it up there with the greats, and probably the best show that aloeals to girls. X-men, Thundarr the Barbarian, Dungeons and Dragons, First run of Transformers, Beast Wars, MLP: FIM, original run of Powerpuff Girls, RugRats, Gi Joe, Johnny Quest, Gravity Falls and Freakazoid.

Hahaha no. It's not well written at all. Remember the barn? They don't even have writers, just storyboarders winging it. Fucking hell this is 10/10 bait.

Freakazoid

is better than anything else in that list.

If you can erase the bad parts of masculinity, you can erase the crazy from women ten times over.

Women are only crazy as a reaction to menz toxic masculinity, duh!

SU is a great show

lol

SU is a shitty inconsistant train wreck but Greg Murdercock is great.

Why do hugbox faggots have such incredible sway and influence on Reddit?

Because emotionally fragile people who never leave the house become subreddit moderators.

Why do hugbox faggots have such incredible sway and influence on Reddit?

• No jobs, plenty of free time

• Fanatically feminist to a religious level

• No bad tactics

• Defend other feminists no matter how bad they are (usually because they're just as bad)

They find a place that's considered respectable, has power or is influential. Slowly they take over mod positions, followed by replacing existing mods, followed by removing wrongthink in the sub until it's an echo chamber.

But why do they always relate real life to cartoons?

Adults desperate to remain children.

Steven portraying masculinity

Steven isn't a fat lesbo?

I hate to serious post, but this shit will rubberband back. Once we go pretty far into the side of being huge pussies the world will go to shit and well have to rape and murder our way back into balance and then well become pussies again because all the manly men made things good and on and on.

If you still take (((psychology))) seriously in the year of our Lord 2019 then you need to get your fucking head checked.

Yeah all psychology is bullshit. Besides Jordan Peterson, evolutionary psychology, and race and iq studies, which are essentially the inerrant word of God.

Well, obviously.

IQ studies can be done on genetic markers alone, psychology is irrelevant.

Source?

His arse

No source needed to construct a particular null hypothesis and an alternative hypothesis. H0 is that genes don't matter and H1 being that they do matter. That would be enough to base a study around.

Now... I would agree that you should factor in socioeconomic things like education/wealth and other things tbf, but the shitshow that is psychology remains irrelevant as always though, data for education and wealth can be gathered without reference to psych.

If you are an authority on this subject then you should have at least one peer-reviewed source that demonstrates:

IQ studies can be done on genetic markers alone, psychology is irrelevant.

I'm no authority on IQ, I just have a hate boner for psych, snally senpai.

Why do you think that IQ can be determined by genetic markers tho?Even the most optimistic geneticist wouldn't say that.

Because Jews are the master race.

I have a hate boner for you. Bend over and show me your boi pussy.

Show me your hoggy hog hog and I'll show you mine.

Cryptofash pissant.

This, but unironically. I actually believe Peterson is a useful force for wayward, weak men. Odin knows they need it what with cucked fathers and single mothers.

Anyone that says Odin like this should be fucking castrated

I'm picturing u/darqwolf saying that. Just a fat, slobby dude with greasy long hair and a few pimples that he got from not changing his pillow case for six months.

Nah. The weakest men just see Peterson as their daddy and latch onto him like baby ducks and become cult like rabid fanboys.

Despite being 13%

Don't you work in medical research? The validity and reliability of publications in your general field is much worse than those in experimental psychology. The APA is trying way too hard to be #woke tho.

The validity and reliability of publications in your general field is much worse than those in experimental psychology

Imagine getting to 2019 while still believing this. No one who is anyone gives a shit about psychology. You don't have nearly the same autistioid grad students running machine learning on the results and identifying problems with the original experiment. This is because, and I repeat, no one gives a shit about psychology.

Psych is a soft science that's going to get cucked by neuroscience one of these days.

No one who is anyone gives a shit about psychology.

Who's anyone?

You don't have nearly the same autistioid grad students running machine learning on the results and identifying problems with the original experiment.

You think that this is something that is common in medical research? It has the same problems as all the life sciences. Nobody gets funding for replicating experiments unless there's some sort of moral crisis going on. And medical research is inherently much less reliable than most of the in-vogue psychology fields due to the fact that it's impossible to do a true experimental study in most cases, the sample sizes are even lower than experimental psych research due to the subject matter and expense, and the effects are much more prone to nuisance variables than something like visual perception or cognitive control, where you can create methods that remove a good portion of individual differences from the equation.

Psych is a soft science that's going to get cucked by neuroscience one of these days.

If you actually knew anything about the field then you would know that psych and neuro are extremely incestuous and the difference between the two fields in many cases is fuzzy. The furthest neuro research areas overlap with genetics and everything else overlaps heavily with experimental psychology.

Wow, Negi, you gave me a novel here. Let's not get too worked up ok?

And medical research is inherently much less reliable than most of the in-vogue psychology fields due to the fact that it's impossible to do a true experimental study in most cases

Medical research is a red herring, uncertainity in medical research is an artifact of the ethical and legal difficulties of performing it. Something like a study on a cadre of diabetic patients is going to be far harder than studying the function of pancreatic cells. Psychology is hard to replicate because they have no idea what the fuck they are doing besides promoting autogynephilia.

It has the same problems as all the life sciences

Except for being a social science, not a life science.

psych and neuro are extremely incestuous and the difference between the two fields in many cases is fuzzy

If its incest, neurology is an austrian man, and psychology is chained to a radiator in the basement.

The furthest neuro research areas overlap with genetics and everything else overlaps heavily with experimental psychology.

Many fields collaborate on research projects without being redundant, or in the case of psychology, useless.

That degree finally paying off

I am a bot. Contact for questions

lmfao

Medical research is a red herring, uncertainity in medical research is an artifact of the ethical and legal difficulties of performing it.

Something tells me that you don't have a very strong background in research methods...

Something like a study on a cadre of diabetic patients is going to be far harder than studying the function of pancreatic cells.

This is meaningless without any sort of explanation.

Psychology is hard to replicate because they have no idea what the fuck they are doing besides promoting autogynephilia.

wat

Since you're such an expert, why don't you show us some examples of recent, peer-reviewed psychology research and demonstrate to us how the authors 'don't know what the fuck they're doing'? I'll give you some hot topics that you can start with: the relationship between visual perception and proprioception, concept mapping in the brain

Something tells me that you don't have a very strong background in research methods...

No honey, that's what I'm acccusing you of. You can't just turn around and go "no u"

This is meaningless without any sort of explanation.

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🍆🍆🍆🍆

I'll give you some hot topics that you can start with: the relationship between visual perception and proprioception, concept mapping in the brain

I mean, have I touched a nerve here? You can't stop seriousposting. Normally to see this kind of defensiveness I have to talk shit about crossfit.

Find a couple of recent studies in each topic and explain why the research methods and data analysis are invalid.

Negi, you and I both know its against the academic honesty policy for me to do your homework for you.

All I'm seeing here is that you can't actually demonstrate the bullshit you're spewing. Here, I'll help. Point out why these studies are social science trash and why these methods are worse than those of the average medical science study, and as such why they are soft science studies that should be discredited:

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00775/full

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-02750-9

All I'm seeing here is that you can't actually defend the bullshit you're spewing.

checks the subreddit title, pulls out a map

Did I make a wrong turn somewhere?

Point out why these studies are social science trash

Easy; they're social science. I also totally come to /r/Drama to read journal articles and examine them for accuracy. How about you take the lead, and go prove that their math is correct? I don't want to spend hours reading through journal articles + their supplemental material just because you're upset I criticized your minecraft server.

Easy; they're social science.

Can you tell us specifically what is wrong with the methods?

and go prove that their math is correct?

As someone who has a background in experimental methods, shouldn't it be easy for you to see whether the "math""""" is correct? Also, shouldn't you as an expert in these matters know that the "math" will always be correct and that the problem is always with the set-up of the study?

I'm baiting you in the laziest way possible and you can't seem to stop responding.

Merely Pretending

Merely Pretending

Uh, sweaty, I'm not pretending, I'm insulting you, criticizing your pet topic, and you're responding to defend the honor of the fair maiden. That's what I mean by bait. I stand by everything I say.

Also, shouldn't you as an expert in these matters know that the "math" will always be correct and that the problem is always with the set-up of the study?

No actually. People fuck up large dataset analysis all the time. They may also "p-hack" at their available data to try and make it look like the data support their conclusion. Some pop-culture professor type recently lost his job over that actually.

Also lol @ going to bed and waking up with an inbox full of snally S E E T H E

You can't just seriouspost and then pull the "just pretending to be retarded" trump card. It's not very cute.

I'm not the one actually trying to defend (((psychology))) here. I'm the one poisoning the well by pointing out that hir is trans. Hir actually linked journal articles @ me. If that isn't terminal seriousness I don't know what is.

>cogsci and neurological studies

you posted the only relevant fields in psychology lmao.

​

cogsci

That's even fluffier than psychology

neurological

what? Neurology is a medical science. Both of those studies fall into the domain of Psychology.

Are you a psychologist? How is cogsci "fluffier" than psychology?

Cogsci encompasses an extremely broad range of topics and disciplines, including art, sociology, philosophy, etc.

So does psychology, you aren't really telling me anything.

...what? Cogsci was constructed for the sole purpose of being an interdisciplinary field. Psychology primarily uses experimental or quasi-experimental scientific methods, with some qualitative research popping up once in a blue moon.

Psychology is a social science, psychiatry is the one within the medical field.

Both are certain degrees of bullshit, but psychiatry is the one which follows the scientific method, and requires the practitioner to be a trained medical doctor. Psychologists are about as accurate in their assessments as pissing in the wind.

Psychology is a social science

It depends on the area; right now cognitive psychology/neuroscience is in vogue, and it isn't social science anymore than experimental biology or medical science is.

but psychiatry is the field which follows the scientific method

All of academic psychology uses the scientific method. The 'softest' areas are age- and mental health-related where true experimental studies can't be created for obvious reasons.

and requires the practitioner to be a trained medical doctor.

Psychiatrists and clinical Psychologists don't use the scientific method- they're practitioners unless they do academic research and practice on the side.

Psychologists are about as accurate in their assessments as pissing in the wind.

It depends heavily on the therapist and the patient. But the majority of psych research has nothing to do with clinical psychology/abnormal psychology. Psychology encompasses everything that has to do with cognition and behavior.

Yeah i work in molecular biology. Our replication crisis isn't neary as bad as the one in psychology, although we do suffer from a similar obsession with statisticial significance, which leads to shit like P-hacking and dubious statistics. There was one Japanese researcher who made up shit like 3 years ago, but he did the honorable thing and committed seppuku when he was found out. Honorless psychologists would never commit seppuku.

The one sub-field that does suffer from replication issues is oncology, but it's a question whether this is due to malpractice or because of the fact that cancer is such a heterogenous and unstable disease, and no 2 cancer cells are exactly the same.

psychology is literally retarded and all these studies fall under the replication crisis.

Just because the psychologist diagnosed you with insufferable autism doesn't mean it's all a sham.

youre prob a retarded psychologist. which is redundant to even say.

good one

didnt see a denial that you were a psychologist. pathetic. absolutely pathetic. i dont even want to ask how much money you spent for a joke degree.

I'm not even close to a psychologist, but I'm glad you could let out some of that pent up autistic fury.

The whole fucking discipline is plagued by a lack of repetition. Literary the whole fucking thing. Im not saying things like counseling or mental care are bad but shit like the concept of toxic masculinity was quite literary and openly created by transexual marxist who hated masculinity. How the fuck do you look at something like and then have the APA say "masculinity is bad" and then don't think that the fuckers aren't biased.

Sometimes Marxist dialectics are a useful way to look at a problem. For instance the Marxist view of the French revolution had long been taught in history classes by even conservative professors because it's such a useful generalization.

And sometimes they are simply propaganda.

The whole fucking discipline is plagued by a lack of repetition.

That's more or less true of any life sciences that use experimental or quasi-experimental methods. As far as the big findings go in all of the branches of psychology, there is actually a lot of repetition; even if exact methods aren't used again and again, a body of evidence builds through dozens of studies to suggest that something is true, e.g. the two-factor theory of emotion or the theory that the brain unconsciously makes movements that expend the least amount of energy. The replication crisis extends mostly to small things like 'is there a correlation between low-income and anxiety traits??' and other unimportant shit that may eventually become a part of the canon if it somehow becomes a hot topic.

I wouldn't doubt that at least some of the qualities that they mentioned in their description of 'toxic masculinity' are linked to poor outcomes, e.g. risk-taking, aggression, and (obsessive) achievement-seeking; those three qualities have been associated with various types of issues over decades of research and definitely aren't victims of the replication crisis.

That said, the APA really shouldn't be fucking around with pop culture trends. In time they're going to end up with egg on their face like they have whenever they take a socially-charged stance that falls out of favor. You'd think that they would have learned their lesson after all of these years, but I guess most people who has some sort of academic power and follows a research trend thinks that they're ~uncovering the real truth~ and that their socially-charged work will be the work that settles the discussion.

Snally sweetie. Stop talking like you have any grounding or scientific background in anything... like at all. You're like an insufferable undergrad home from their first semester of college.

The level of genuine care you seem to have about psychology might explain your generally anti-science stance though.

Insults don't work if they aren't true. Nothing I said was particularly controversial, so it's pretty clear that you're talking out your ass about a field that you don't have much experience in.

Insults don't work if they aren't true.

I feel like this is the kind of thing bullying victims say while holding back tears.

Nothing I said was particularly controversial

It didn't have an explicit disclaimer exposing your trans status, meaning you're in breach of minimum ethical standards.

so it's pretty clear that you're talking out your ass about a field that you don't have much experience in.

Classic projection

Have you had too much to drink tonight?

You know its ok to just admit that I'm making good points right? Don't be all up in here w/ that derailing shit.

You're not making any points tho. You can't even interact with the academic literature that you're pretending to have some sort of authority on.

You don't think its the tiniest bit irresponsible to discuss psychology without labeling each message clearly as coming from a transgender individual?

wat

U herd me.

Did you carry out a transvestigation?

There needs to be greater transparency on this subreddit.

Why do you think Snally is trans?

"Trans" might be a strong word. Hir is male, but pretends to be a woman in the internet.

Have you got evidence or are you just throwing shit to see what sticks

Knew him from another community actually.

Post a link you cock tease!

If you can't say anything better than "no u" than whats the point of even coming to this sub?

Forgot to log out of your alt?

Lol, your pretty terrible at this. I don't come to /r/drama to read this kind of normie, pedestrian crap.

your

Criticize me all you want, but at least have the decency to grammarpost.

That's a bit better.

That's more or less true of any life sciences that use experimental or quasi-experimental methods.

Agriculture is relatively safe because

A) Low pressure to publish

B) All the assholes became doctors

C) Look, I just want to drink beer on my combine and occasionally do research that uses a PhD. Most of the field is similarly relaxed.

Life science in general isn't fucked, just parts of it that have compromised publishing standards to get more papers through. Crop science has a minimum of two years of experimental data to publish.

So not all Life Science.

That's more or less true of any life sciences that use experimental or quasi-experimental methods. As far as the big findings go in all of the branches of psychology, there is actually a lot of repetition

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/scientists-replicated-100-psychology-studies-and-fewer-half-got-same-results-180956426/

Buddy, psychology is a meme science.

I mean, you may potentially be right at getting the autism part of /r/drama subscribers right, but the replication crisis in social sciences is very real. And even the in the field of psychology, only 36% of the total studies can be replicated. The rest of them from the given sample size couldn't.

Cognitive psychology is the only sub field with a higher replication rate of 50% and social psychology is the worst with 25%.

Psychologists don't diagnose jackshit, that's a psychiatrist, and is an actual medical practitioner.

Psychologists become professors, HR consultants, or write wildly inaccurate behavioural tests.

and therapists are a really expensive google search, what a meme field

A Disney movie can be packed with high quality psychological content. A children’s story book can lay out the basis for many psychological concepts. It’s very small minded to disregard something just because “it’s a kids show”.

Presented without comment.

I mean, they're not wrong. Just because sonething is presented more simply doesn't make it less true. Especially if the lesson in question is supposed to be taught to children.

Like, you wouldn't throw Moby Dick at a child when you could just show them any of a dozen cartoons that make the same points, but in ways that are actually interesting to consume.

Needless to say, you can learn everything you need to know about modern politics from Harry Potter.

(I'm a Gryffindor, of course 😏)

I think I'm slytherin. Oh well.

Sneks are pretty cool.

Inside Out showed me that being sad is a part of growing up, and that when my kids cry I shouldn’t really beat them into submission to get them to shut the fuck up.

To be fair Steven Universe made me realize hoew fucked up women, lesbians and Californians are.

Jordan Peterson already proved the entire meaning of life was crammed into Pinocchio.

The Purge can't get started fast enough.

Got that, shitbirds?

Humans climbed out of the trees and within a few hundred millennia landed robots on Mars, but we did it all wrong. Let the real scientists: the PSYCHOLOGISTS show humanity how shit is really done.

The Soviets put a man into space, and yet some have the audacity to suggest that communism is not a perfect system in need of no modification.

brings up one retarded failed state in response to a comment about the entire history of humankind

thinks it was a great gotcha or even made sense

Absolute state etc. etc.

Commies reveal their power level pretty easily, talk about the brutality of USSR and they claim it's not communism's fault because USSR was "state capitalism" and somehow have no issues with claiming the space advances of the "state capitalist" USSR as the victory of communism

Literally aren't scientists, it's not a scientific field.

Once again forum moderators prove themselves to be the biggest dipshits on the internet.

the APA is just the "academic" wing of the ACLU, SPLC, and ADL, right?

I am not sure if I should be proud or ashamed or knowing what all those acronyms stand for as a Euroepan

You forgot the ABDL.

Bull fucking shit. The original APA guidelines literary say that masculinity is harmfull. Fuck the APA and fuck you OP you weasel lying cunt.

Hi, Vurtizontal!

I am stopping by to wish you the best day, and the best year!

-HappyFriendlyBot

Aww, thank you.

What in tarnation

WHERES THE LIE???

We already know you gave up your manhood long ago Ed.

WHERES THE LIE?????

Come meet me out back and I'll show you. You can take that however you want.😉😉

OwO

Sadly yet another academic field falls to feminism.

Okay but "toxic masculinity' is a valid academic term.

/u/mrsamsa is only further pushing feminism. We are going to be so fucked as humans down the road with feminism.

Well, since you boys care and the damage is done, here is /u/mrsamsa losing a discussion with me and then threatening to ban me at the end, to which I realize they're a mod and call out their bullshit. So they ban me from pscyhology. Of course, I didn't violate any rules. They just lost the debate.

https://www.reddit.com/r/psychology/comments/aevemb/psychologists_call_traditional_masculinity/edv17s5/

https://www.reddit.com/r/psychology/comments/aevemb/psychologists_call_traditional_masculinity/edvquoz/

If they are that bitchmade, then /drama can have at it.

No source needed to construct a particular null hypothesis and an alternative hypothesis. H0 is that genes don't matter and H1 being that they do matter. That would be enough to base a study around.

Now... I would agree that you should factor in socioeconomic things like education/wealth and other things tbf, but the shitshow that is psychology remains irrelevant as always though, data for education and wealth can be gathered without reference to psych.

The problem is that masculinity is being framed as a continuous gradient, with traditional “toxic” masculinity over on the bad end and our new, “healthy” masculinity over on the good end. All men need to do is cut out these bad parts and embrace our better conception and they’ll be mentally healthier overall. But that’s not really an accurate portrayal of the situation: of course some of the qualities the guidelines identify as toxic are unhealthy in excess, but there’s a big difference between a quality being negative when taken to the extreme and that quality being negative per se, which is what some of these guidelines and the coverage surrounding them both lean towards. Deficiency in these qualities isn’t psychologically or socially healthy either, and it’s ridiculous to claim that the idea of balance isn’t already crucial to “traditional” ideals of masculinity. It goes all the way back to Aristotle and the fucking Nicomachean Ethics: bravery is the middle state achieved by the moderation of that quality which in excess manifests as aggression and recklessness and in deficiency manifests as cowardice and passivity. inb4 “no true Scotsman” allegations, but it’s kind of dumb to point at men who fail to strike this balance (which is hard to do; men have known this and struggled with it for literally millennia) and overshoot and say “see masculinity tells you to be aggressive, just stop doing that, ez”. Of course many men embrace excessive and unhealthy ideas of masculinity, but it’s not as simple as completely excising the “toxic” qualities because their total absence is similarly unhealthy. But you’ll rarely see most people who talk about “the negative aspects of masculinity” acknowledge that some of the “new masculine” qualities they push also manifest as negative (you could even call it “toxic”, how about that?) when taken to the opposite extreme.

TL;DR: It comes across as unbelievably arrogant when you act like you just invented the concept of moderation and label one common way of failing to embody the masculine ideal (which is and always has been about balancing and controlling contradictory impulses) as the actual masculine ideal itself.

Mommy is soooo proud of you, sweaty. Let's put this sperg out up on the fridge with all your other failures.

I am a bot. Contact for questions

My nigga

I'm sure this will combat the widespread perception of psychologists as either manipulative mad scientists or complete complete bullshitters.

I mean, it's hard enough getting most men to see a mental health professional. This is just going to make it impossible.

The article doesn't use the term "toxic masculinity" and has entire sections dedicated to the positive aspects of masculinity.

People are getting upset about an article they haven't read.

hmm imagine my surprise.