Bias, prejudice and stereotyping by psychologists?

Post Reply New Topic

This year, I have had some tests done regarding my mental abilities and as an extra the psychologists also evaluated my behaviour in the context of autism. My disappointing college performances prompted me to have this test, so I would be able to understand why it has been going wrong.

Except I'm not so happy with what they wrote in the report and I want them to change it. I'm not going to disclose what it was but I'm gutted by it and I feel that their reasoning is because I'm diagnosed as autistic. They're making assertions they haven't tested thoroughly throughout the three meetings I had with them. I'm beginning to suspect that they may have been biased and prejudiced, even if they claim this all to be within their professional framework.

The question is: is there a particular attitude psychologists and educationalists start out with when dealing with autistics and let this attitude continue throughout the testing and analytical process and eventually when writing behavioural reports and making conclusions? Do you start out with a clean sheet as an autistic or has it been smudged already the moment you make it known to them?

Difference is seen through a lens of normocentric bias, and this includes psychologists who are part of the same social and cultural milieu.
The people who wear these spectacles don't believe they wear them, and psychologists perhaps are most prone to being blind to their inherent bias. This is because academic psychology is taught to them as if it was a thoroughly scientific branch of science, and it is not - they are rarely taught to think critically. Clinical psychology is even less of a science - a lot of it is reactionary theorising.

Learning to see the lens in one's eye isn't in the syllabus (usually). So yes, we will always start off as one down in the kind of evaluative setting you are reacting to. And the lens is muddied further by the egocentricity and arrogance often found in mental health professionals - the field seems to attract large numbers of egotists and narcissists, and that maybe shouldn't surprise, because the narcissists adore having power over less powerful people. Sad, but it goes with the territory my friend.

OK, this is also my suspicion but I would like to invite professionals or people who are well acquainted with this type of work to say something about the line of approach of those who analyse behaviour in the way I described it in my opening post.

I have not been diagnosed with ASD and I am not a psychological professional. However, MiLK's question and observations are interesting. I was formerly diagnosed with bipolar disorder and more recently, post traumatic stress disorder. It was very difficult to open up to therapists at my university about things that happened in my childhood without them either 1) Asking me questions as to why I haven't coped in ways to include drug abuse and promiscuity (It was as if they were disappointed that these weren't behavioral problems of mine), 2) Or relying on racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic stereotypes to question the truthfulness of the things I would communicate to them regarding my family life. I am probably going to piss off a lot of people (frankly I don't care at this point), but there was a cultural problem. Most of the therapists and psychiatrists who were guilty of items one and two were Hispanic, questioned whether I was telling the truth about my GPA and whether my goals were realistic (Really, they couldn't just look up the information in my file?), and thought I was some spoiled brat because I'm half white and half Asian. It was even imparted several times that because of this, I am not allowed to have problems. It was very frustrating.

The current therapist I am seeing is much more competent and realizes that I am an individual. I admit I was straightforward with the clinic when telling them what I wanted in a therapist. If they are asking me whether I prefer a male or a female, I think I should have a preference in ethnicity too. I told them of my past problems and I feel much more comfortable with who I'm seeing now. I'm not shamed for my "special interests" and we're looking into some of my behaviors you can consider to be like "stims" and "meltdowns." I didn't get this with past therapists and psychiatrists, one from the university having tried to diagnose me with narcissistic personality disorder just because of the law schools I was applying to, for Christ's sake.

Psychologists and teachers are subject to the same biases and prejudices as everyone else. What you have is a certain level of reassurance that their professional training minimises the risk of them transferring these biases through assessment, treatment or therapy. Through training most are mindful of their own potential to be biased and to create demand characteristics on students or patients.

Attitudes toward autistics is largely flavoured by experience. If a teacher or psychologist has mainly experienced negative outcomes with autistic students or patients then there is a risk they may not have high expectations when you walk into their office. Take some solace that people in the "helping" professions are generally people who want to make a positive change and would prefer to help you. But it's also up to you to make sure they always address your issues of concern and not leave it up to them to do (what they think) is best for you.

As someone who had to go through a battery of tests a few years back, I can tell you that those tests are not designed for us on the spectrum, and that their results will be flawed. They are, quite simply, garbage.

Also in my experience dealing with therapists - most are rather sadistic individuals who get a thrill out of "figuring out" other people, and they enjoy thinking they know more about their patients than the patients do themselves. One, I recall, thought that everything I was telling him was a sophisticated subterfuge to present myself as a good guy, when in fact (to him) I was deeply manipulative and unfeeling and was hiding a narcissistic personality disorder. I told him this didn't make sense to me, but he told me that my denial was hindering my progress.

When I (on my own) began to suspect Asperger's, he ridiculed me and made fun of me.

Since I got a formal diagnosis (from people expert in autism) I learned that the MMPI often shows a false positive of narcissism for people with autism, and that the lack of empathy that showed up on the test was usual for people on the spectrum, too, and not indicative in any way of my inner psyche.

Let me be blunt:
1) neurotypical psychometric tests (e.g. MMPI, Rorschach) are total BS for people on the spectrum.
2) MOST THERAPISTS ARE EVIL AND LIKE TO PLAY GOD.

From your description, it appears your therapists are trying to frame your autism diagnosis within the landscape of neurotypical psychology, which is not only a grave error on their part but also a violation of your rights as a person with a disability. Autism is not part of our psychology; it is our psychology. Typical psychological "causality" does not typically transfer from the NT to the ASD person. Normal CBT approaches have to be radically adjusted to assist people on the spectrum. Your therapists may not understand that.

I would, if I were you, ask for a second opinion from someone (say, a licensed social worker associated with Easter Seals) who knows autism.

Interesting. The postdoc I saw in college was so focused on my lack of empathy. Then she settled on PTSD given what I told her about certain things. It's probably accurate. I have been desensitized to a lot. Also, in an environment where a 22 year old classmate in college would be coddled for crying in class about her boyfriend forgetting their ten-month anniversary (I thought these were supposed to be yearly? Do they seriously celebrate every month? God.), and professors told me I was making poor choices for letting my grades fall (A 3.85 to a 3.75 when I graduated. Big f-cking deal) because I was working at the same time and dealing with family issues of a greater extremity? Yeah, I don't take most people's "issues" seriously anymore.

I took the MMPI but they never discussed test results with me. I just took a bunch of tests but nothing came out of it. Just hours the test administrator can use to justify her pay (she annoyed me too).

Psychometric tests for autistic adults are simply methods to convert attitudes and perceptions of current functioning into measurable scores. They are prone to subjective bias



Most therapists or doctors believe they are providing a valuable service. I've not been very impressed by the few I've dealt with but the more experienced ones are careful not to promise too much (they understand the limitations of what they provide). There are a few who have no idea they are condescending or tactless.
-

When tests are developed, one stage of the process is that they are "standardised" - this means that they are tested on populations so that they best measure the most representative part of the general population. So unless they are standardised on ASD populations, they are - as JSBachlover pointed out - inappropriate and incapable of providing valid results for non-standard populations.

Another part of the test development process is tests for reliability and validity coefficients. These measure whether the standard population will get consistent scores (reliability) and whether the scores actually measure what they are supposed to measure (validity). Even for the standard population - which excludes us - the coefficients are not that high: about the highest are .7, which means that for 30% of the standard (NT) population, the tests will be not reliable nor valid to some extent.

So blind faith in these tests - even for NTs, and even for the most reliable tests - is more an act of faith than science.

Incidentally OP I am fairly qualified in these disciplines, I did very well academically in them, though unlike most psychologists I also qualified in Philosophy of Science and Critical Theory - the two disciplines which do provide the "lens" generally not learnt at all by graduates who qualify in the social sciences.

Last edited by B19 on 28 Sep 2014, 6:28 am, edited 1 time in total.

Unfortunately many psychologist, psychiatrist and therapist have a very bad habit of "reading people" which is really nothing more than making assumptions about someone that may or may not be valid. For example, I remember years ago a therapist insisted my allergy to cats was entirely psychosomatic. He didn't just theorize that might be the case - he assumed it as a fact. When I told him about difficulties I had dealing with people - he again assumed as a fact that I had a "persecution complex." Again, he didn't probe other possibilities. He just plain assumed it.

Specific to autism I suspect many practitioners might assume some glaring generalizations about people with autism. If they are not current on things or critical thinking in general they may very well just assume that anyone with autism completely lacks imagination and has little or no feelings for anyone except themselves. Those were standard clichés that are unfortunately still believed by many people.

I guess it is a good idea to find a practitioner who doesn't make broad stroke assumptions, doesn't think they know everything and who listens. Fortunately, now I have one. Unfortunately, most of the time in the past I did not.

^ Very true. They make assumptions. The problem with many of those "professionals" is that they are proud and stubborn and don't even consider listening to their patients. It's as if the patients were some damaged, lesser beings whose minds don't function fully and were not worth listening to.

I had a really hard time trying to get the psychologist to understand that my worries were realistic, if not very likely to happen. She kept dismissing me by saying "you are being paranoid" as if that explained all my problems. I have to say such "professionals" are plain incompetent. And unfortunately they are not that uncommon.

I also believe the incompetents are not uncommon - they are the rule rather than the exception from what I have observed and from personal experience.

Also I think JSBachlover made a really cogent point in that CBT - which is still very much the fashion in some quarters (therapy, like dress designing, is very subject to fashionable ideas, which - when the fashion changes, appear ridiculous) is totally unhelpful for ASD clients.
Even the supposedly newer and more humane version of it (dialectical behavioural therapy, DBT) is the same old with the addition of making the client answer the issues and questions which are confounding them.

For example: say you seek help from a cognitive behavioural therapist (one who is using its latest fashionable version, DBT) because you are confused about which career to choose. Instead of providing some objective response such as "Well, given that your primary skills are x, it seems that you would do better in x careers, so let's look at the possibilities there first and see if we can identify a best fit together" - the DBT's are trained to ask you questions back, instead of responding to your request - usually along the lines of "Well, what would a wise person tell you to do?" (The idea is to force the client into having a dialogue with himself or herself and solve his or her own problems). Now this is not entirely without merit, I concede - in certain circumstances, that can be a useful approach. But just like CBT, it is being promoted as a one size fits all in all situations; fashion again...

Historically we look back at Freud and shudder - or we should shudder: Freud the "scientist" declared that the sexual abuse of children did not exist; that children or adults who claimed to have been abused were fantasists. It gave abusers a licence to abuse with almost total impunity for most of the 20th century. That example alone should warn us of the dangers of being naive, credulous and blindly trusting in respect to psychotherapy and every variety of its practitioners. The worst are no better than witchdoctors; the best are few and far between; and the rest are there because it is a relatively lucrative career choice if you are good at selling yourself.

Good point and something certainly worth pursuing for a federal health department. I assume a hypothetical test would be standardised on a statistically significant population of higher functioning folk across the usual demographic strata to minimise individual differences?

While I would like to ascribe good intentions to everyone in the "helping professions," my experience has taught me that those in such professions are most susceptible to pride. I'm in such a profession, and sadly many of my colleagues are infected with this kind of pride: "I know best." I'm sure I suffer from it, too. Example: Someone comes to your office; you want to help them; you want the person to feel helped; you want to come up with a solution for the benefit of the person, but often for the satisfaction of being "the one" who had the insight" - you can see where this can lead.

In any event, I speak from experience. (I'm biased, to be sure, but I'm biased because of the crazy things said to me.) Many therapists pick up ill intentions the way we pick up bad habits. And, as a base-line, many therapists lack the intellectual capacity to be good therapists. Certainly, very few recognize the ".7" correlation mentioned by B19; most rather prefer to repeat uncritically the inherited mantra: "these tests are very sensitive."

I would feel less strongly about this, but for the fact that these psychologists have become the high priests of our society, deciding who is normal and who is not. They can destroy a life by proclaiming someone "disordered" in a court of law. Or, for instance in the case of the Catholic clergy abuse scandal, they can destroy many, many lives by claiming a person "cured" when he is not.

JSBachlover (though I am Mozart lover!) we seem to be completely in tune today - I entirely agree with what you have said in the preceding post.

It concerns me deeply that people struggling with intense psychological, spiritual and emotional pain are sold so short by a great majority of these "helpers". The effect of these incompetent helpers - who are indeed often very "religious" in their particular affinity to whichever "creed of psychotherapy" they follow can be tragic - compounding the damage that inspired the person in pain or crisis to seek help in the first place, and often the reaction to that betrayal of trust by incompetent therapists is a descent into a state of hopelessness and despair. They then typically seek relief in antidepressants which tend to numb the symptoms rather than produce positive transformation. I am not convinced that, in the bigger picture, this is ultimately helpful to people.

I am not religious, though in the most challenging times of my life, when pain and grief were overwhelming, therapists were, for the most part, simply appalling. The person I did find (or more accurately she happened to find me) who helped me through to recovery and transformation, who could really stand along side me and understand the depth and nature of my experience, was a spiritual director from the Dominicans; I am sure many people who knew me would have found this alignment almost unbelievable Yet we were both thinkers who liked to ponder the deeper aspects of human experience. She was older, wiser, and profoundly aware of the deeper transitional processes of the soul, the best listener and the least judgmental person I have ever encountered. I simply hadn't known before that that people like her did exist in the church.

So sometimes we do find help in the most unlikely ways and places..

One of the many problems with standardization and hope this makes you smile too:


http://iwastesomuchtime.com/on/?i=37716