Psychology Today

{{title-italics}}{{psychology}}
'''''Psychology Today''''' is a print and online magazine that publishes popular psychology articles. Some articles cite [[scientific]] research and others are based on [[opinion]] or observation. Many of its contributors are qualified, though their articles don't undergo [[peer review]].

Some of its articles veer into [[pseudoscience]] territory, so don't believe everything you read.

==History==
''Psychology Today'' was founded by Nicholas Charney, Ph.D. in 1967, and publishes issues every other month.<ref>[https://www.researchgate.net/publication/231582087_Was_There_Really_a_Popular_Science_%27Boom%27 Was There Really a Popular Science 'Boom'?]</ref>

===Recent history===
''Psychology Today'' has a large web presence, featuring many blogs with popular psychology articles. It also includes a large online therapist directory where patients can find a specialist who suits their needs.

Its covers feature white people 88% of the time—usually skinny, conventionally attractive white women.<ref>[https://www.therapyden.com/blog/psychology-today-magazine-loves-beautiful-thin-white-women Psychology Today Magazine Loves White People. Especially Beautiful and Thin White Women.]</ref> They are often wearing makeup and "sexy" clothes.

==Articles==
[[Media Bias/Fact Check]] lists ''Psychology Today'' as pro-science with high factual reporting. It notes that while individual writers show [[bias]], the publication is scientific overall.<ref>[https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/psychology-today/ Psychology Today] - Media Bias/Fact Check</ref>

===The good===
''Psychology Today'' explains scientific concepts in accessible language, educating the general public in facets of psychology. The language is plain enough that teens as well as adults can read it and learn new things.

The magazine includes articles about issues that affect the general public, such as self-esteem, identifying and treating mental illnesses, and identifying abusive relationships. This knowledge can make a difference to people who need it. For instance, [https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-roychowdhury-code/202110/mindfulness-practices-save-your-sanity-in-lockdown this article] by [https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/contributors/dev-roychowdhury-dpsych Dev Roychowdhury] lists evidence-based actionable steps that people can take to practice mindfulness during [[COVID-19]] confinement and lockdowns. 

''Psychology Today'' employs a diverse group of contributors with different specialties and backgrounds. This includes hiring people with certain psychological conditions to write about those conditions, such as people with [[ADHD]] and autism writing articles that help others understand them better.

===The bad===
''Psychology Today'' has a diverse team of writers, and sometimes that includes people with ideas that really shouldn't get published. A few articles are biased, non-factual, or even straight up rotten.

====The article saying black women aren't pretty====
[[File:SXSW 2019 4 (47282558132) (cropped).jpg|thumb|right|165px|Obviously Kanazawa needs to get his eyes checked.]]
In 2011, [[evolutionary psychology|evolutionary psychologist]]
Satoshi Kanazawa pubished an article entitled "Why Are Black Women Less Physically Attractive Than Other Women?" on ''Psychology Today''. Yes, really. He used "research" to prove his point, though he didn't disclose [[sample size]] or [[confounding factor]]s.<ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/may/18/satoshi-kanazawa-black-women-psychology-today Satoshi Kanazawa's racist nonsense should not be tolerated] - The Guardian</ref>

Other contributing writers, understandably horrified that their colleague could publish such an article, quickly wrote refutations that pointed out the many<ref>[https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/the-data-are-in-regarding-satoshi-kanazawa/ The Data Are In Regarding Satoshi Kanazawa] - Scientific American</ref>{{efn|Lupita Nyong'o. Tyra Banks. Naomi Campbell. Janelle Monáe. Winnie Harlow. Beyoncé. We could go on.}} holes in his research. Finally, editor-in-chief Kaja Perina issued an apology for allowing the article's publication, saying that it had been taken down and that they had "taken measures to ensure that such an incident does not occur again."<ref>[https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/05/psychology-today-apologizes-black-women-less-attractive-article/351205/ Psychology Today Apologizes for 'Black Women Less Attractive' Post] - The Atlantic</ref>

Some people felt that the apology was not enough. A Change.org petition called upon ''Psychology Today'' to apologize more deeply, dismiss Kanazawa, clarify what "measures" are being taken to prevent future incidents, and post articles debunking [[scientific racism]].<ref>[https://www.change.org/p/psychology-today-stop-publishing-racist-sexist-articles Psychology Today: Stop Publishing Racist & Sexist Articles] - Change.org</ref>

====Autism and schizophrenia stereotypes====
{{main|1=Autism|3=Schizophrenia|5=Stereotype}}
{{cquote|In other words, while autistics don't mentalize enough, [[psychotic]]s mentalize too much; where autistics [[Ableism|don't seem to have minds at all]], psychotics suffer from cancers of the minds they do have.|||[[Christopher Badcock|Christopher Robert Badcock]],<ref>[https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-imprinted-brain/201803/autistic-brains-function-oppositely-psychotic-ones Autistic Brains Function Oppositely to Psychotic Ones] - Psychology Today</ref> who doesn't seem to realize that he's talking about actual human beings}}

[[File:Lydia Brown at Colorado Trust.jpg|thumb|right|165px|Who gave this [[ableism|violent feral shell of a human being]] a microphone?]]
In 2016, ''Psychology Today'' published two articles by Christopher Robert Badcock, Ph.D., claiming that [[autism|autistic]] people were "[[evolutionary psychology|undomesticated humans]]"<ref>[https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-imprinted-brain/201608/autistics-undomesticated-humans Autistics as Undomesticated Humans] - Psychology Today</ref> (using "evidence" like [[phrenology|head size and ear shape]] and the debunked<ref>[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4331245/ Aggression in children with autism spectrum disorders and a clinic-referred comparison group] - Autism</ref><ref>[https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/12/autism-is-not-psychosis/266434/ Autism Is Not Psychosis] - The Atlantic. Though psychotic breaks don't usually cause violence.</ref><ref>[https://theconversation.com/toronto-attack-autism-does-not-increase-risk-of-violence-95636 Toronto attack: Autism does not increase risk of violence] - The Conversation</ref> claim that autistics are violent) and people with schizophrenia were "hyper-domesticated humans."<ref>[https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-imprinted-brain/201609/schizophrenics-hyper-domesticated-humans Schizophrenics as Hyper-domesticated Humans] - Psychology Today</ref>

Badcock has also published articles with other "fun" claims, like:
* Autistics lacking {{wpl|theory of mind}}<ref>[https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-imprinted-brain/201501/hyper-mentalism-in-children-reporting-psychotic-experiences Hyper-mentalism in Children Reporting Psychotic Experiences]</ref> (debunked<ref>[https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2019-75285-001.html Empirical Failures of the Claim That Autistic People Lack a Theory of Mind]</ref><ref>[https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/right-incentive-can-erase-autism-deficit/ The Right Incentive Can Erase an Autism Deficit] - Scientific American. Maybe autistic kids just aren't that interested in answering strangers' weird questions.</ref><ref>[https://www.huffpost.com/entry/autism-theory_b_1594706 Debunking the Theory of Mind] - Huffington Post</ref><ref>[https://dsq-sds.org/article/view/3876/3405 Clinically Significant Disturbance: On Theorists Who Theorize Theory of Mind] - Disability Studies Quarterly</ref>)
* Wealth causing the "autism epidemic"<ref>[https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-imprinted-brain/201809/why-affluence-is-the-true-cause-the-real-autism-epidemic Why Affluence Is the True Cause of the Real Autism Epidemic]</ref> (which probably isn't a real thing<ref>[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4232964/ Three Reasons Not to Believe in an Autism Epidemic] - Current Directions in Psychological Science</ref><ref>[https://www.spectrumnews.org/news/large-swedish-study-casts-doubt-on-autism-epidemic/ Large Swedish study casts doubt on autism 'epidemic'] - Spectrum News</ref><ref>[https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2018/4/28/17295398/cdc-autism-rates-epidemic-diagnosis-vaccines-myth The CDC just announced one in 59 children are autistic. Here's why that's not evidence of an epidemic.]</ref>{{efn|The [[tl;dr]] is that we're getting a lot better at diagnosing autism in people who would have otherwise been missed}})
* Males being naturally more autistic and females naturally being more psychotic, and [[Western world|Western society]] being more autistic and thus having more "[[LGBT]]-ism"<ref>[https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-imprinted-brain/201909/diametric-diagnosis-the-new-british-disease A Diametric Diagnosis of the New British Disease]</ref><{{efn|Individuals on the Autism spectrum tend to be less influenced by or responsive to societal expectations or constraints so maybe more likely to identify with their LGB attraction or gender dysphoria.<ref>[https://www.aane.org/sexual-orientation-gender-identity-aspergerautism/ Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Asperger/Autism] Jamie Freed, Autism Network aane.org</ref> Some research indicates that androgen exposure in the womb may cause autism.<ref>[https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/02/180207120622.htm Male susceptibility to autism linked to male hormones in early-stage brain development]</ref> Prenatal androgen exposure is also a factor in development of non-heterosexual attraction (see {{wpl|Prenatal hormones and sexual orientation}}) You could argue there may be be some overlap, however autistics tending not to care what others think is just as convincing.}}
* Failing to examine gendered biases in diagnosis, like thinking that "the overwhelmingly [[female hysteria|female incidence of hysteria]] in the 19<sup>th</sup> century" was a sign that women were mentally ill more often<ref>[https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-imprinted-brain/201403/being-female-protected-autism-risk-psychosis Being Female: Protected From Autism But at Risk of Psychosis] - Psychology Today</ref> (instead of being more likely to be diagnosed by men after they dared to protest against [[sexism]]).

====Presenting pseudoscience as real====
''Psychology Today'' includes articles on [[neurolinguistic programming]] (NLP), a pseudoscientific technique that claims to cure all kinds of mental and physical ailments. It displays articles treating NLP as a valid method for treating mental illness<ref>[https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/therapy-types/neuro-linguistic-programming-therapy Neuro-Linguistic Programming Therapy] - Psychology Today</ref><ref>[https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-squeaky-wheel/201401/nlp-experts-speak-out NLP Experts Speak Out] - Psychology Today</ref> and its therapist directory includes NLP therapists.<ref>[https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/therapists/neuro-linguistic Find a Neuro-Linguistic Therapist] - Psychology Today</ref>

====Defence of [[inspiration porn]]====
Another article in 2016<ref>Lutz, Amy S.F. (Oct 19, 2016). [https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/inspectrum/201610/bring-the-inspiration-porn Bring on the "Inspiration Porn"]. ''Psychology Today''. Retrieved April 5, 2020.</ref> suggested that inspiration porn was acceptable because there was a need for more encouraging news in such turbulent times. This being in the context of a particularly [[2016 U.S. presidential election|dirty political campaign]] which was widely agreed to be one of the most negative in recent history. The fact that disabled people don't exist for the purpose of making the able-bodied comfortable is lost on the author.

The comments, thankfully, did point this out, by explaining how such porn helps to turn disabled people into objects of pity rather than autonomous human beings.

==Notes==
{{reflist|group=note}}

==References==
{{reflist|2|80%}}

[[Category:American media]]
[[Category:Popular science]]
[[Category:Pseudoscience promoting organizations]]

Categories: American media, Popular science, Pseudoscience promoting organizations