Silander, Geczy, Marks, and Mather (2020) review important considerations relating to ideological diversity. In particular, they describe the overt and subtle ways in which divergent, conservative viewpoints may be stifled in social psychology, leading to second‐order effects on clinical psychology. These are salient considerations as political polarization is ostensibly at an all‐time high. However, in this commentary, I argue that the lack of ideological diversity in some areas of the humanities (notably cultural and gender studies) has a more pressing negative impact on clinical psychology by way of their influence on American Psychological Association guidelines. Furthermore, the ideology problem in these fields is not inherently political; rather, it is rooted in an intellectual approach to scholarship that is antiscience: postmodernism.

In 1996, the cultural studies’ journal, Social Text , published a special issue labeled “Science Wars.” The special issue included postmodern criticisms of science, including one contribution from a member of the natural sciences—a article written by the progressive (and feminist) physicist Alan Sokal. On the same day that “Science Wars” was published, Sokal published another article in Lingua Franca . It was titled: “A physicist experiments with cultural studies.” In the latter article, Sokal (1996) writes:

For some years I've been troubled by an apparent decline in the standards of intellectual rigor in certain precincts of the American academic humanities…So, to test the prevailing intellectual standards, I decided to try a modest (though admittedly uncontrolled) experiment: Would a leading North American journal of cultural studies—whose editorial collective includes such luminaries as Fredric Jameson and Andrew Ross—publish an article liberally salted with nonsense if (a) it sounded good and (b) it flattered the editors' ideological preconceptions? (p. 62)

Sokal’s (1996) concerns stemmed from his belief that postmodern ideology had negatively impacted the arts and humanities.

To understand postmodernism, one must appreciate its counterpoint. Modernism is the intellectual movement that started the Enlightenment in the early 18th century (Hicks, 2014). Prior to this time, the predominant epistemological viewpoints focused on religion, faith, and the supernatural. The Enlightenment modernist approach, on the other hand, was the advent of reason and modern scientific epistemological approaches. Modernism continues to thrive in most developed countries and is the fundamental philosophical basis of the STEM fields.

Postmodernism is a diffuse philosophical and cultural movement that was formally developed in the mid‐20th century as a countermovement to modernism. In general, postmodernist viewpoints are far left on the political spectrum, and the theory is associated with the following major premises: (a) There is no objective reality, (b) subjective reality is entirely comprised of social constructs, (c) subjective reality is constructed by language, (d) individual identity is constructed mostly by demographic group memberships, and (e) human beings have two primary roles: oppressor and the oppressed (Hicks, 2014). A corollary of these premises is that the Enlightenment/modernism assertions of objective truth, reason, autonomy, and individual differences are fallacious red herrings.

As noted earlier, Sokal's article was indeed published in the Social Text “Science Wars” issue. Reflecting on his parody article, Sokal (1996) writes:

In the second paragraph I declare, without the slightest evidence or argument, that “‘physical reality’ [note the scare quotes]...is at bottom a social and linguistic construct.” Not our theories of physical reality, mind you, but the reality itself. Fair enough: anyone who believes that the laws of physics are mere social conventions is invited to try transgressing those conventions from the windows of my apartment. (I live on the twenty‐first floor.) (p. 62)

Sokal’s (1996) parody article illustrates how the foundations of postmodernism can support absurd claims made in cultural studies’ journals.

Progressive academics James Lindsay, Peter Boghossian, and Helen Pluckrose initiated a proverbial Science Wars: II against postmodernism in 2017 and 2018. They wrote 20 parody manuscripts labeled “grievance studies” because their conclusions were consistent with social grievances that follow from postmodernism's premises. The articles were written with extensive logical errors and methodological problems to test the hypothesis that the journals would overlook these issues if the conclusions were consistent with postmodern ideology. They had seven articles that were accepted and five articles that received revise‐and‐resubmit decisions before a media leak forced them to shut down the project. Six of the manuscripts were theoretical. In the other six manuscripts, the authors’ utilized fabricated data of very questionable quality (e.g., sample sizes less than 15, conclusions that were inconsistent with the data). As shown in Table 1, all of the manuscripts had absurd conclusions (manuscripts and reviews are at http://bit.ly/2OsWnnH). For example, one article won an award from a first‐quartile gender and cultural studies journal for observational research concluding that dogs evidence rape culture.

At this juncture, it is worth noting that anyone who holds the self‐evident beliefs that prejudice, discrimination, and inequality are evil may face significant cognitive dissonance when considering criticisms of gender and cultural studies journals. This dissonance can be resolved by reframing scientific skepticism and critical viewpoints as essential rather than oppositional to the purpose of gender and cultural research. In contrast, the antiscientific postmodern ideological bias demonstrated by the grievance studies affair significantly undermines the quality of research in these disciplines.

What are the implications of this postmodern ideological bias on clinical psychology? The following postmodern‐driven concepts are examples from the humanities that have had a major influence on APA guidelines without a commensurate level of empirical examination in the psychological literature: intersectionality, racial privilege, oppression, and the social construction of gender/sexuality. These concepts are major components of the most recent multicultural guidelines (APA, 2017; Guidelines 1 and 5) as well as the guidelines for practice with boys and men (APA, 2018; Guidelines 1, 2, 3, and 10). The first guideline for multicultural practice is “Psychologists seek to … appreciate that intersectionality is shaped by the multiplicity of the individual's social contexts” (p. 4). The introductory paragraph in this section encourages psychologists to understand the intersections of demographic characteristics and their influence on privilege and oppression. In terms of the APA guidelines for practice with boys and men, the first guideline is a particularly telling marker of postmodernism: “Psychologists strive to recognize that masculinities are constructed based on social, cultural, and contextual norms” (p. 6) , emphasis added. Biological factors are not described.

Importantly, APA is not only writing practice guidelines that overextend empirical research, but postmodern concepts are also influencing the reporting and execution of psychological research in a top‐down manner. The recently released APA Style Guidelines include a revised section on bias‐free language that is heavily influenced by inadequately tested postmodern concepts (https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/bias-free-language/free-language/). For example, gender is formally defined as a social construct and biological sex is described as having a sociocultural influence because chromosome findings are “interpreted within a sociocultural context” (for this reason, it is problematic to use the term “birth sex”). The use of bias‐free language is obviously important, but ideologically derived limits on language can have an insidious influence on how psychological research is conducted, reported, and interpreted. This concern is most readily apparent in the style guide's intersectionality section, which guides researchers to describe their samples in terms of intersections because different layers of discrimination, oppression, and privilege differentially influence identity. For example, in contrast to the current standards, intersections such as the following are recommended: number of African‐American, cisgender, women; number of White, cisgender, women, etc.

Silander，Geczy，Marks和Mather（2020年）复习与意识形态多样性相关的重要考虑因素。特别是，他们描述了在社会心理学中可能扼杀分歧，保守的观点的明显和微妙的方式，从而导致对临床心理学的二阶影响。这些是明显的考虑因素，因为政治上的两极分化表面上是前所未有的。但是，在这篇评论中，我认为人文学科某些领域（尤其是文化和性别研究）缺乏意识形态多样性，因为它们对美国心理学会指南的影响对临床心理学产生了更为紧迫的负面影响。此外，这些领域中的意识形态问题并非天生具有政治意义。相反，它根植于反科学的学术研究方法：后现代主义。

1996年，文化研究的期刊《社会文本》（Social Text）发表了一个名为“科学大战”的特刊。特刊包括对科学的后现代批评，其中包括自然科学的一则贡献，这是由进步（和女权主义）物理学家艾伦·索卡尔（Alan Sokal）撰写的。在《科学大战》出版的同一天，索卡尔在《林瓜·弗朗卡》上发表了另一篇文章。标题是：“物理学家进行文化研究的实验。” 索卡尔（1996）在后一篇文章中写道：

多年来，我一直为某些美国学术领域的知识严格标准明显下降而感到困扰。因此，为了测试现行的知识标准，我决定尝试进行一个温和的（尽管公认是不受控制的）实验：北美领先的文化研究期刊（其编辑集体包括弗雷德里克·詹姆森和安德鲁·罗斯等名流）是否发表废话而无聊，如果（a）听起来不错，并且（b）奉承编辑者的意识形态偏见？（第62页）

索卡尔（Sokal，1996）的担忧源于他的信念，即后现代意识形态对艺术和人文科学产生了负面影响。

要理解后现代主义，必须认识到它的对立面。现代主义是始于18世纪初的启蒙运动的思想运动（希克斯，2014年）。在此之前，认识论的主要观点集中在宗教，信仰和超自然现象上。另一方面，启蒙现代主义的方法是理性和现代科学认识论方法的出现。现代主义在大多数发达国家继续蓬勃发展，并且是STEM领域的基本哲学基础。

后现代主义是一种扩散的哲学和文化运动，其在20世纪中叶作为对现代主义的反动而正式发展。一般而言，后现代主义的观点在政治领域最不重要，并且该理论与以下主要前提有关：（a）没有客观现实，（b）主观现实完全由社会建构组成，（c）主观现实（d）个人身份主要由人口群体成员构成，（e）人类具有两个主要作用：压迫者和被压迫者（希克斯，2014年）。这些前提的必然结果是，客观真理，理性，自主权和个体差异的启蒙运动/现代主义断言是谬论。

如前所述，Sokal的文章确实发表在《科学大战》（Science Wars）社会文本上。反思他的模仿文章，索卡尔（1996年）写道：

在第二段中，我宣布，没有丝毫证据或论点，“'物理现实'[注：吓人的话] ...从根本上讲是一种社会和语言结构。” 请注意，不是我们关于物理现实的理论，而是现实本身。足够公平：任何认为物理定律仅是社会惯例的人都可以尝试从我公寓的窗户上违反那些惯例。（我住在二十一楼。）（第62页）

索卡尔（Sokal，1996）的模仿文章阐明了后现代主义的基础如何支持文化研究期刊上提出的荒谬主张。

进步学者James Lindsay，Peter Boghossian和Helen Pluckrose引发了众所周知的科学大战：II他们在2017年和2018年反对后现代主义。他们写了20篇标有“抱怨研究”的模仿手稿，因为他们的结论与后现代主义前提下产生的社会不满一致。这些文章写有广泛的逻辑错误和方法论问题，以检验以下假设：如果结论与后现代意识形态相一致，期刊将忽略这些问题。在媒体泄漏迫使他们关闭该项目之前，他们有七篇文章被接受，五篇文章接受了修订和重新提交的决定。其中六篇是理论性的。在其他六份手稿中，作者使用了质量非常可疑的虚假数据（例如，样本量小于15，结论与数据不一致）。如表1所示，所有手稿都有荒谬的结论（手稿和评论位于http://bit.ly/2OsWnnH）。例如，有一篇文章获得了第一四分位的性别与文化研究杂志的一项观察性研究奖，该研究认为狗可以证明强奸文化。

在此关头，值得注意的是，凡是对偏见，歧视和不平等都是邪恶的不言而喻的人，在考虑对性别和文化研究期刊的批评时，可能会面临重大的认知失调。这种不和谐可以通过重新规划科学的怀疑和批判的角度考虑来解决重要的，而不是对立的性别和文化研究的目的。相比之下，委屈的研究表明，反科学的后现代意识形态偏见大大损害了这些学科的研究质量。

这种后现代意识形态偏见对临床心理学有何影响？以下后现代驱动的概念是来自人文科学的示例，这些示例对APA准则产生了重大影响，而没有在心理学文献中进行相应水平的实证检验：相交性，种族特权，压迫以及性别/性爱的社会建构。这些概念是最新的多元文化指南（APA，2017 ;指南1和5）以及男女同修指南（APA，2018）的主要组成部分; 准则1、2、3和10）。多元文化实践的第一条准则是“心理学家试图……认识到交叉性是由个体的社会环境的多样性所决定的”（第4页）。本节的介绍性段落鼓励心理学家了解人口统计学特征的交集及其对特权和压迫的影响。根据APA的男孩和男人练习指南，第一条指南特别说明了后现代主义：“心理学家努力认识到，男性气概是基于社会，文化和背景规范构建的”（第6页），着重添加。没有描述生物因素。

重要的是，APA不仅在编写超越实证研究的实践指南，而且后现代概念也以自上而下的方式影响着心理学研究的报告和执行。最近发布的APA风格指南包括有关无偏见语言的修订版，该部分在很大程度上受到未经充分测试的后现代概念的影响（https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/bias-free-language/free-language /）。例如，性别被正式定义为社会构造和生物性被描述为具有社会文化影响力，因为染色体发现是“在社会文化背景下解释的”（因此，使用术语“出生性”是有问题的）。使用无偏见的语言显然很重要，但是从意识形态上得出的语言限制可能会对进行，报告和解释心理学研究的方式产生隐性影响。这种担忧在样式指南的“相交性”部分中很容易看出，该节指导研究人员根据相交来描述他们的样本，因为不同层次的歧视，压迫和特权会不同地影响身份。例如，与当前标准相反，建议使用以下交叉点：非裔美国人，顺性别，女性人数；