Variety: LDS Musician Confronts His Church’s LGBT Stance in New Sundance Documentary

[kllindley]

1 minute ago, clarkgoble said:

I think Reynolds himself has admitted to conflicting feelings and appears to have testimony issues. However going shirtless in a show says nothing about that. I'd note that polynesian dancers usually go shirtless too at BYU. I don't think anyone thinks those performances are problematic. (Well OK there are some - but they're also railing at the Cougarettes for not wearing garments during their routines too)

I want to be clear that I don't think his concert attire directly means anything about his worthiness or testimony. My point was much more about the appearance of his intentions, heavily influenced by a review of the Believer Documentary that revealed he relied on commentary and interviews with Dehlin. 

Maybe no other member would attribute any meaning to those two data points, but the fact that this article showed up in my Google feed immediately after I read the gushing review seemed meaningful to me. 

[JulieM]

55 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

http://fox13now.com/2018/06/17/3-questions-with-bob-evans-dan-reynolds-on-the-intersection-of-lds-and-lgbtq-at-loveloud/ This was on last night, I think it will clear up any misconceptions.

That was great to listen to!  He’s well spoken and seems very level headed (at least in this interview).  It’s great he’s using his fame to draw attention to a serious problem and I hope it helps.  Too bad about his marriage (there are probably many factors involved but he’s handling it well it seems).  I hope he expands the discussion outside of it just being a Mormon problem and maybe he’s already doing that?

Thanks for this, Tacenda!

Edited June 18, 2018 by JulieM

[Daniel2]

On 6/17/2018 at 12:11 AM, kllindley said:

Could you explain how you see "single cause" as so different from "driving force?" That seems like a distinction without a difference. Wouldn't you day that from your narrative, "Mormonism" is the factor without which, you and all the others would never have been suicidal? How is that not falling into the trap of attributing suicidality to a cause which could lead vulnerable individuals to see their own experiences as part of an inevitable shared story?

I completely disagree that sexual orientation is ever a cause for suicide.  That's every bit as reckless and untrue as blaming Mormonism. 

The point though is that while your shared experiences are certainly valid and meaningful to you, it is impossible to separate those experiences from the narrative through which you choose to interpret and communicate those experiences. It isn't that I disbelieve your experience. It's that I don't automatically accept the interpretation or narrative you've placed on them. Especially when that narrative is not acknowledged, but rather claimed as fact. 

If you mean the article  itself, then either you didn't read it, didn't understand it, or believe Jacob is lying. 

If you mean the impact of the portion I chose to quote in my post, I apologize.  

This is a very interesting comment. I have a hard time believing that you actually see these two examples as equivalent. Does hearing a Mormon share their belief in the Restoration, or their testimony of the Book of Mormon, or their experience of feeling the Holy Ghost confirm the Divinity of the Family Proclamation lead you to "believe and accept" the truth of those things? Or do you accept that these may be our sincere, but mistaken interpretations of our spiritual experiences? Do you think that any Mormon here expects you to believe God spoke to us just because we claim it?

But if I say that I respect a gay person's experience of suicidality and accept that he genuinely believes that Mormonism is the "driving force," while simultaneously believing that reality is more complex than this explanation, I'm being unfair and rebuffing? 

A “driving force” is different than a “single source” because while a driving force is a primary cause, there can also be other secondary/lesser sources that also affect/influence an outcome.

While Mormonism was the main cause of my own suicidiality, there were other secondary social, emotional, and interpersonal factors that also played out. I won’t go into them all here, but years of therapy helped me explore and understand myself and process those factors. 

From my perspective, your rejection of my earlier analogy by questioning whether or not I actually believe/accept the reality of the religious tennents of Mormonism when listening to Mormons’ testimonies after asking them what they believe?’ is misguided as an attempt to counter my suggestion to believe individuals’ own words about the nature of the causes of their own personal suicidiality. There is world of difference between believing claims of an external-but-Faith-based reality vs. accepting individuals’ descriptions of their own personal, internal thoughts, drives, and motivations. 

Also, I reject the notion that my full-examined and professionally-guided processing of my own motivations can easily be dismissed merely as some ‘personal narrative’. Psychology and psychiatry are not pseudo-science and are based on empirical science and medical research. A main reason many religious people seem to reject them is because they don’t match their own religious narratives and beliefs, not the other way around. 

Edited June 19, 2018 by Daniel2

[clarkgoble]

51 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Psychology and psychiatry are not pseudo-science and are based on empirical science and medical research. A main reason many religious people seem to reject them is because they don’t match their own religious narratives and beliefs, not the other way around. 

I'd heavily distinguish psychology from psychiatry. The latter is more focused on criteria based upon symptoms but typically with near total ignorance of underlying material causes. That means that while some treatments work (say anti-depressants or electroshock) frequently why they work isn't understood. Often the side effects and trade offs are poorly understood as well. Finally there's a lot that gets done under the rubric of psychiatry that isn't scientifically arrived at. (Although thankfully the influence of Freud is mostly gone - although there still are psychiatrists using the psychodynamic model)

None of this is to single out psychiatry. Sadly in medicine proper there's been significant practices done out of tradition rather than a grounding in science. This has famously led to mistakes particularly relative to diet. Evidence based medicine has become much better although of course it's not hard to find doctors not keeping up on the latest research. And surprisingly the widespread adoption of evidence based medicine is really quite recent.

For a good essay noting the problems in psychiatry practice of not embracing established science this Scientific American article is worth reading. Again this is not psychiatry being broadly a pseudo-science. Rather it is the embrace at times of pseudo-science or tradition over scientifically established practice. The reality is that a lot of mental illness is akin to where medicine was in the early 19th century. Yes a doctor could successfully fix a broken arm. But it doesn't follow they knew what they were talking about relative to cancer or heart disease. Medicine changed because of a lot of scientific discovery in the 20th century. Unfortunately that level of discovery about the brain just hasn't happened yet.

Edited June 19, 2018 by clarkgoble

[Kenngo1969]

I haven't followed each word of every post on this thread slavishly, on the edge of my seat, all aquiver, with 'bated breath, so please forgive the duplication if someone already has posted this: https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900021663/op-ed-responding-to-ellen-on-mormons-and-teen-suicide.html

[kllindley]

1 minute ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I haven't followed each word of every post on this thread slavishly, on the edge of my seat, all aquiver, with 'bated breath, so please forgive the duplication if someone already has posted this: https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900021663/op-ed-responding-to-ellen-on-mormons-and-teen-suicide.html

I'm hurt. I've posted some good stuff here, and now I lean you're not even reading it? 😉

Though, the article is good and well worth the repost in case anyone didn't read it!

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I'd heavily distinguish psychology from psychiatry. The latter is more focused on criteria based upon symptoms but typically with near total ignorance of underlying material causes. That means that while some treatments work (say anti-depressants or electroshock) frequently why they work isn't understood. Often the side effects and trade offs are poorly understood as well. Finally there's a lot that gets done under the rubric of psychiatry that isn't scientifically arrived at. (Although thankfully the influence of Freud is mostly gone - although there still are psychiatrists using the psychodynamic model)

None of this is to single out psychiatry. Sadly in medicine proper there's been significant practices done out of tradition rather than a grounding in science. This has famously led to mistakes particularly relative to diet. Evidence based medicine has become much better although of course it's not hard to find doctors not keeping up on the latest research. And surprisingly the widespread adoption of evidence based medicine is really quite recent.

For a good essay noting the problems in psychiatry practice of not embracing established science this Scientific American article is worth reading. Again this is not psychiatry being broadly a pseudo-science. Rather it is the embrace at times of pseudo-science or tradition over scientifically established practice. The reality is that a lot of mental illness is akin to where medicine was in the early 19th century. Yes a doctor could successfully fix a broken arm. But it doesn't follow they knew what they were talking about relative to cancer or heart disease. Medicine changed because of a lot of scientific discovery in the 20th century. Unfortunately that level of discovery about the brain just hasn't happened yet.

My last class my senior year was a graduate course in the philosophy of psychology, including tracking down the origins of theories and demonstrating how much data actually linked to conclusions for use in treatment .  The lack of empirical data for foundational claims for all theories and therapies at the time pretty much caused me to dump it as a career.  There is more available these days when it comes to cognitive approaches, but calling it a "science" is iffy if one means highly empirical in my view (my first love is physics).

[kllindley]

6 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Although thankfully the influence of Freud is mostly gone - although there still are psychiatrists using the psychodynamic model

Totally off-topic, but I strongly disagree that the influence of Freud is mostly gone. Or that it would be a good thing. Much of modern psychology is heavily influenced by his ideas, some of which are actually pretty good. Which is not to say that much of his work isn't rubbish. But I think his overall influence was positive.

[Kenngo1969]

Quote

Psychology and psychiatry are not pseudo-science and are based on empirical science and medical research. A main reason many religious people seem to reject them is because they don’t match their own religious narratives and beliefs, not the other way around. 

I would be the last to discount psychology and/or psychiatry if someone says he has benefitted from them.  Indeed, I count myself among those who have done so.  That said, however, while religious devotion, on the one hand, and psychiatry and psychology, on the other hand, have at least come to a state of detente, historically, psychiatry lumped religion, religious devotion and practice, and spiritual experience in with delusional states.  

[Kenngo1969]

12 minutes ago, kllindley said:

I'm hurt. I've posted some good stuff here, and now I lean you're not even reading it? 😉

Though, the article is good and well worth the repost in case anyone didn't read it!

Sorry.  

(But ... great minds think alike? ) 

[kllindley]

1 hour ago, Daniel2 said:

A “driving force” is different than a “single source” because while a driving force is a primary cause, there can also be other secondary/lesser sources that also affect/influence an outcome.

While Mormonism was the main cause of my own suicidiality, there were other secondary social, emotional, and interpersonal factors that also played out. I won’t go into them all here, but years of therapy helped me explore and understand myself and process those factors. 

Thank you for answering and explaining.  I think I can better understand your perspective.  

 

Quote

From my perspective, your rejection of my earlier analogy by questioning whether or not I actually believe/accept the reality of the religious tennents of Mormonism when listening to Mormons’ testimonies after asking them what they believe?’ is misguided as an attempt to counter my suggestion to believe individuals’ own words about the nature of the causes of their own personal suicidiality. There is world of difference between believing claims of an external-but-Faith-based reality vs. accepting individuals’ descriptions of their own personal, internal thoughts, drives, and motivations. 

 

I think it's fair to say that we disagree deeply about the nature and empiric validity of personal, internal thoughts, drives, and motivations.  That's okay.  

 

Quote

Also, I reject the notion that my full-examined and professionally-guided processing of my own motivations can easily be dismissed merely as some ‘personal narrative’. Psychology and psychiatry are not pseudo-science and are based on empirical science and medical research. A main reason many religious people seem to reject them is because they don’t match their own religious narratives and beliefs, not the other way around. 

I'm sorry.  I did not and do not intend to dismiss your experience by identifying it as a narrative.  I think you and I have very different ideas of what is meant by that word.  

Quote

The power of narrative to captivate, orient, guide, and shape has been increasingly appreciated in psychological research. Narrative theorists[2] argue that the impulse to interpret or “make sense” of one’s life is inherent and universal to all human experience. Rather than mere “perception” or momentary judgments, human beings are understood to be continuallyinterpreting, “narrating,” and making sense of their experience as they navigate surrounding circumstances – reflecting a kind of never-ending practice that is lived and continuously accomplished moment by moment.[3]

In this way, the focus of narrative investigation is not just experience, but how diverse human beings interpret experience in unique ways.  Julian Rappaport at the University of Illinois has argued that individuals do not create their own personal story “whole cloth” out of nothing, but instead draw on dominant narratives available in the broader collective. And Dan McAdams at Northwestern University has written about “a sense in which a life story is jointly authored, both by the person whose story it is and the culture(s) within which the story is embedded.”

. . . . . 

More than a “subjective overlay” or “perception” of experience, narratives have an existential quality to them. In addition to telling stories, for instance, individuals are understood to be living them out in tangible ways (Fay, 1996, p. 178). Kleinman (1988) notes that “personal narrative does not merely reflect…experience, but rather it contributes to the experience” (p. 49). In this way, narratives have been argued to reflect “the preferred mode for understanding how human intentions and desires get translated into human actions and how those actions play out over time” (McAdams,1999, p. 480) – even once proposed as a “root metaphor” for psychology as a whole (Sarbin, 1986).  [Citations: Fay, B. (1996). Contemporary philosophy of social science: A multicultural approach. Boston: Blackwell Publishing; Kleinman, A. (1988). The illness narratives: Suffering, healing, and the human condition. New York: Basic Books; McAdams, D. P. (1999). Personal narratives and the life story. In L. Pervin & O. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 478-500). New York: Guilford Press; Sarbin, T. R. (2017). The narrative as a root metaphor for psychology. In Narrative Psychology: The Storied Nature of Human Conduct. Ed. Theodore R. Sarbin. New York: Praeger, 1986. 3-21]

 

For my part, I reject the notion that psychology and psychiatry represent a superior way of understanding the world.  Especially to the degree to which psychology has been based on positivist assumptions about reality.   As Clark noted above, more and more people are coming to recognize the limitations of these two fields.  The replication crisis in psychology as well as the well-documented liberal bias in the fields of social science are just two further examples of why such universal confidence in the "science" of psychology is unfounded.  

[Storm Rider]

12 minutes ago, kllindley said:

For my part, I reject the notion that psychology and psychiatry represent a superior way of understanding the world.  Especially to the degree to which psychology has been based on positivist assumptions about reality.   As Clark noted above, more and more people are coming to recognize the limitations of these two fields.  The replication crisis in psychology as well as the well-documented liberal bias in the fields of social science are just two further examples of why such universal confidence in the "science" of psychology is unfounded.  

1

The term "social science" is a misnomer - it is anything but science and it has become the scourge of university-level education for the last several decades. It reeks of left-wing politics seeking the cover "science" to prove identity politics value. I think, almost, that if each Sociology department at every university were shut down for the next 50 years we would be in a far greater place academically and socially....I take it back, I am sure we would be.  Just my opinion.

[clarkgoble]

57 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Totally off-topic, but I strongly disagree that the influence of Freud is mostly gone. Or that it would be a good thing. Much of modern psychology is heavily influenced by his ideas, some of which are actually pretty good. Which is not to say that much of his work isn't rubbish. But I think his overall influence was positive.

A few notions have been tested empirically (unlike how Freud typically "tested") that he originated. That's not really what I'm talking about when I critique his influence. His famous theories which owed more to literary criticism than science like the Oedipal dynamics are thankfully not part of contemporary psychology. The only really scientifically based therapeutic method is cognitive behavioral therapy. In terms of psychological theories (as opposed to psychoanalysis) Roy Baumeister has some good analysis of what's been confirmed. Some views were correct - although that's probably in spite of Freud's "scientific" methods (which were anything but). Remember that to be science one needs more than a correct theory but includes a particular type of argument for the theory.

1 hour ago, Calm said:

My last class my senior year was a graduate course in the philosophy of psychology, including tracking down the origins of theories and demonstrating how much data actually linked to conclusions for use in treatment .  The lack of empirical data for foundational claims for all theories and therapies at the time pretty much caused me to dump it as a career.  There is more available these days when it comes to cognitive approaches, but calling it a "science" is iffy if one means highly empirical in my view (my first love is physics).

I wouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Again I'd distinguish psychotherapy from psychology. However you're right that there are some paradigms that don't have compelling justification. Likewise the problem of replication of major cited papers in psychology has been a scandal. This has undermined major ideas of the past few decades like priming or types of unconscious bias related to racism. (Which in turn had tests to help people discover their racism - so even here there are applied ideas that are pseudoscience) 

The reason I'd be cautious though is because most fields have had replication crises the past decade. Even physics, the most robust field, has found numerous papers don't replicate. I think psychology is worse because it is key foundational papers that are like this. Priming being the most infamous. However in most fields people are finding fully 20% of cited papers are false. Ideally science corrects for this however the way publishing and funding have developed, particularly the past 30 years has seriously undermined this important constituent of scientific progress. Scientists are trying to correct this, although again funding issues and how universities hire and retain staff makes this difficult.

43 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Especially to the degree to which psychology has been based on positivist assumptions about reality.   As Clark noted above, more and more people are coming to recognize the limitations of these two fields.  The replication crisis in psychology as well as the well-documented liberal bias in the fields of social science are just two further examples of why such universal confidence in the "science" of psychology is unfounded.  

I'm skeptical contemporary psychology is perfused with positivism depending upon what you mean by that. If anything I think the danger in the soft sciences is postmodernism even if that has primarily beset fields like observational anthropology. I think a lot of psychology is reasonably tested and solid. However clearly we don't know that much. The places that are most interesting are in the intersection of cognitive science and neurology in my opinion. But again that doesn't mean there's not good science in psychology.

[FearlessFixxer]

I saw the movie a couple of months ago here in Las Vegas.  It was really good and was pretty soft on the church except for like the last two minutes.

Up until the last two minutes, I was actually shocked at how good of a light it was painting the church in.

And the last two minutes, which was harsher towards the church than the rest of the movie, were still on the soft side of the spectrum (IMHO)

 

 

Edited June 20, 2018 by FearlessFixxer

[kllindley]

6 minutes ago, FearlessFixxer said:

I saw the movie a couple of months ago here in Las Vegas.  It was really good and was pretty soft on the church except for like the last two minutes.

Up until the last two minutes, I was actually shocked at how good of a light it was painting the church in.

And the last two minutes, which was harsher towards the church than the rest of the movie, were still on the soft side of the spectrum (IMHO)

 

 

Interesting. Thank you for sharing your observation. I'll be interested to compare it to my reaction. 

[Calm]

16 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I wouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater. 

I don't generally speaking, just in career choice.  I preferred something I would feel more confident I was doing the right way.  The plan was to go back into math (was going to be a professor in something since that would be the closest I could become to perpetual student).  First kid turning a mild annoyance into a major disorder pretty much torpedoed all that.

[clarkgoble]

14 hours ago, Calm said:

I don't generally speaking, just in career choice.  I preferred something I would feel more confident I was doing the right way.  The plan was to go back into math (was going to be a professor in something since that would be the closest I could become to perpetual student).  First kid turning a mild annoyance into a major disorder pretty much torpedoed all that.

Bummer. Although given the market, probably a wise choice. I have a bunch of college buddies that ended up becoming professors at BYU. But they'd done a few post-docs before getting hired. That meant they were nearly 40 by the time they got their first real job. Tough business and few manage that. I've a few other friends who got professorship jobs elsewhere and most of them regret going that career route. I was going to start a PhD and then decided to go out in the business world. I've no regret and actually had a fun life in my late 20's rather than doing nothing but homework and studying like in college.

[RevTestament]

17 hours ago, Calm said:

My last class my senior year was a graduate course in the philosophy of psychology, including tracking down the origins of theories and demonstrating how much data actually linked to conclusions for use in treatment .  The lack of empirical data for foundational claims for all theories and therapies at the time pretty much caused me to dump it as a career.  There is more available these days when it comes to cognitive approaches, but calling it a "science" is iffy if one means highly empirical in my view (my first love is physics).

I definitely view psychology as a science, but it substantially different from psychiatry. Modern medicine tends to focus on biological causes for illness. Not surprisingly, psychiatry's mode of action is to look for biological causes or symptoms, and try to address them. Hence, psychiatrists tend to treat symptoms with drugs to try to improve a condition or symptom biologically. They thus have developed a market for serotonin reuptake inhibitors, etc. While this seems like a scientific way of approaching conditions like depression, it often doesn't address underlying causes of depression. It seems to me psychiatrists have almost given up trying to address causes of many mental conditions.

I view psychology as entering the picture here. Psychologists have developed batteries of tests, which has made it an empirical science in my view. The mental states of people is a complex area to address, and is not like sewing up a wound. Personality types, mental defenses, etc take lifetimes in forming, and are not something one can change with a quick snip. The body is biological but the spirit is otherly. Getting the spirit to mesh with the body is not something science is particularly well adapted. to - hence the unscientific aspects to the discipline you observed. However, I believe psychology represents a decent attempt at it - moreso than psychiatry.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Bummer. Although given the market, probably a wise choice. I have a bunch of college buddies that ended up becoming professors at BYU. But they'd done a few post-docs before getting hired. That meant they were nearly 40 by the time they got their first real job. Tough business and few manage that. I've a few other friends who got professorship jobs elsewhere and most of them regret going that career route. I was going to start a PhD and then decided to go out in the business world. I've no regret and actually had a fun life in my late 20's rather than doing nothing but homework and studying like in college.

I was in the market when women were being courted.  I would have had no problem as long as I hadn't let too many years go by getting my doc.  I am enough of a traditionalist and my husband in a field with bigger salaries generally that we would have gone to the university that hired him, so I was anticipating being an adjunct prof anyway.

Edited June 20, 2018 by Calm

[clarkgoble]

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

I was in the market when women were being courted.  I would have had no problem as long as I hadn't let too many years go by getting my doc.  I am enough of a traditionalist and my husband in a field with bigger salaries generally that we would have gone to the university that hired him, so I was anticipating being an adjunct prof anyway.

Yes that's what two of my friends did. (They're married to each other and are both professors in the physics department - her as more of an adjunct initially)

Going off on a real tangent now, but in hindsight I think a real problem of university is that you have kids who've done school all their life. For kids who are good at it, they often get their self-esteem through it. It's hard to imagine in your early 20's doing anything else. I think universities really take advantage of that although these days the word is starting to get out. Most people just shouldn't pursue an academic career. There's 100 - 200 people for every position. Yet each position requires nearly a decade of extra school work typically without much money. That's a huge risk, but universities never comment on it because grad students and post-docs end up doing much of the work behind any publication. Throw in the extra load most professors have these days compared to the past and it's a lot to ask. However kids 22-24 are just getting PhDs because it's just more of the same in some ways. They don't really consider who they are competing with (top kids from top tier schools) and just how difficult managing to get a job is. 

That said if you're in a technical field getting a job is pretty easy. You just won't get a job typically really related to your major.

I wish universities communicated better the realities of the job market and the opportunities for other types of jobs. Some do. UVU is good although it has more of a history as a vocational school so that makes sense. Even BYU has a jobs fair type thing for seniors. However I know so many people in technical fields part way through their PhDs who never even thought about any of this. If you're not going to get a job requiring or benefiting from a PhD it's worth asking why you're spending 4-7 extra years at great expense getting one.

Edited June 20, 2018 by clarkgoble

[Calm]

2 hours ago, RevTestament said:

I view psychology as entering the picture here. Psychologists have developed batteries of tests, which has made it an empirical science in my view.

While many of the tests are helpful, others don't have all that great reliability, so I wouldn't assume just because there is a range of tests it makes it an empirical science.  My father-in-law was a clinical or educational psychologist and had the typical "battery" of tests from his university years.  Fun to look at, but pretty useless.  Thankfully lots of improvement

[clarkgoble]

3 hours ago, RevTestament said:

I view psychology as entering the picture here. Psychologists have developed batteries of tests, which has made it an empirical science in my view. 

If that were true phrenology would be a science. The question is not just the test, but carefully analyzing empirically whether the claims made via the test replicate. There's no shortage of tests in psychology that are bunk or else at least have very limited applicability yet get used well beyond that. 

[Calm]

But they are fun for parties!

Quote

UVU is good although it has more of a history as a vocational school so that makes sense.

Best faculty parties ever, too.

[HappyJackWagon]

19 hours ago, FearlessFixxer said:

I saw the movie a couple of months ago here in Las Vegas.  It was really good and was pretty soft on the church except for like the last two minutes.

Up until the last two minutes, I was actually shocked at how good of a light it was painting the church in.

And the last two minutes, which was harsher towards the church than the rest of the movie, were still on the soft side of the spectrum (IMHO)

 

 

I'm looking forward to seeing it. I'm anticipating a fair and diplomatic documentary. It may not be perfectly rosy, but I don't suspect it will be a hit piece either.

[RevTestament]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

While many of the tests are helpful, others don't have all that great reliability, so I wouldn't assume just because there is a range of tests it makes it an empirical science.  My father-in-law was a clinical or educational psychologist and had the typical "battery" of tests from his university years.  Fun to look at, but pretty useless.  Thankfully lots of improvement

 

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

If that were true phrenology would be a science. The question is not just the test, but carefully analyzing empirically whether the claims made via the test replicate. There's no shortage of tests in psychology that are bunk or else at least have very limited applicability yet get used well beyond that. 

I did not mean to indicate all the tests are "objective" but certainly some of them are designed with a certain science of determining objectivity. A agree that some of the tests a patient can clearly cheat on if they want. Anyway, my assertion stands that the testing does make psychology at least partially an empirical science. Some of the tests are pretty good at catching fakers.