How The Field of Psychology Became the Engine of Woke Culture

Psychology: The Engine Of Woke

A few months ago, a friend of mine at King’s College London asked me to help her with a 3rd semester assignment for her undergraduate psychology class. I agreed, looking forward to brushing up on the basics, thinking we would go through classic studies and core psychological principles. Disappointment washed over me when she showed me the essay question:

"Focusing on either personality or intelligence, evaluate the research literature on sex differences and/or gender differences with a view to outlining how evidence for any such differences can be treated to foster a more inclusive and equitable society."

The question wasn’t about determining whether differences exist or examining evidence; it had already decided sex and gender were two different concepts and that the purpose of psychology was to promote inclusivity. The conclusion was pre-written, and my friend’s job was simply to fill in the argument. Any citation older than 10 years was disallowed, which meant the established, cross-culturally replicated research I brought her on sex differences in personality, was left unread.

It wasn’t the first time I found myself struggling with the field I once loved. I’ve seen colleagues become unconcerned with therapy durations (some patients visiting them regularly for years forming pseudo-friendships) and why so many modern psychological approaches fail to have their intended effects.

How We Got “Lived Experience” and “Conscious Bias”

Psychology was once committed to scientific methods, following the positivist paradigm, which sought objective truths through quantifiable, empirical research. This approach assumed that human behaviour could be systematically measured and analysed. However, over the past few decades, the field has shifted toward relativism, identity-based theories, and subjectivity.

As happened across liberal arts disciplines during the cultural revolution of the 1970s, postmodernist thought crept into psychology, bringing its obsession with deconstruction. Just as literature students were taught to deconstruct texts before reading the classics, psychology students are now encouraged to challenge foundational concepts before understanding them, as seen in assignments like the one at King’s College. The positivist paradigm has been pushed aside by postmodernism, which rejects objectivity, claiming that human behaviour is too context-dependent for universal laws to exist. This is how we end up with concepts like "lived experience"—where personal stories override measurable reality.

The influence of relativism is evident in academic institutions. Cambridge University, a leading authority in psychology education, openly embraces postmodernist relativism, stating:

"No view in psychology is definitive.”

If no view is definitive, then contradictory theories can coexist indefinitely, no matter how unscientific some may be. This is why Freud’s thoroughly debunked theories—like the Oedipus complex and repressed memories—are still taught in psychology programs alongside behavioural neuroscience and cognitive psychology, as though all theories are equally valid.

This happens when psychology departments are led by figures like Erica Burman, Edwin Gantt, Kenneth Gergen, Barbara Held, Thomas Theo—academics who openly question objectivity itself- ensuring that coursework and research prioritise critical psychology, where the focus shifts to power structures, social justice, and cultural contexts rather than empirical research:

The consequences of abandoning objectivity are particularly serious in defining and diagnosing mental disorders. With standards discarded, diagnosis now depends more on therapists' subjective interpretations than on standardised criteria (e.g. definition of traumatic event), increasing the risk of misdiagnosis and over diagnosis.

From Science to Subjectivity

Another key feature that enabled this shift toward subjectivism is the field’s inclusion of qualitative research, promoted by journals like Qualitative Psychology, relying on interviews, case studies, and validating personal narratives. This approach allows unfalsifiable conclusions, which is how we end up with concepts like "lived experience."

It’s a deliberate restructuring of the field toward the postmodernists' relativistic, socially constructed view of reality where findings rely on subjective interpretation rather than measurable outcomes. By making bad theories harder to disprove—a prerequisite for true science—psychology leaves the door wide open for ideological activism.

An example of the danger in this is a research paper from the once-reputable Monash University on schoolboys’ antifeminism and Andrew Tate, where only qualitative interviews were used as evidence. There was no historical comparison, no opposing perspective, and no objective measures whatsoever; just hearsay and emotional appeal passed off as research. Yet, it sailed through peer review solely because it aligned with ideological bias. The resulting bashing of teenage boys that this paper called for was plastered across newspapers.

Another major force behind psychology’s ideological shift is the American Psychological Association (APA), the leading voice in mental health and the gatekeeper for psychology licenses. Most states require APA-accredited courses, internships, and ethics exams for licensure. Even after licensure, the APA controls continuing education, ensuring its ideological positions shape the field not just in the U.S. but in the European universities which openly adhere to APA standards.

Since its 19th-century founding, the APA has been a political actor, weighing in on issues far beyond psychology, from criminal justice to immigration. To maintain control, it ignores or downplays research that contradicts its preferred narratives. Why isn’t this ideological conformity challenged? Likely because a 2012 study found that only 6% of the 800 psychologists surveyed identified as conservative, ensuring a left-wing monopoly over what gets researched, how findings are framed, and what is promoted as psychological "truth."

Two clear examples: the APA’s promotion of concepts such as “implicit bias/conscious bias” and “microaggressions”. These concepts have no scientific validity, yet are so deeply embedded in training that they function as societal gaslighting, making people second-guess every interaction. The debunked Implicit Bias Assessment remains APA-endorsed, with the organization falsely claiming 80–90% of white people show implicit bias while pushing vague, untested "treatments" with no proven effectiveness.

The Replication Crisis: Psychology’s Biggest Weakness

Every field of science has replication issues, but psychology’s replication crisis is uniquely damaging.

In 2012, a large survey of psychologists admitted that many researchers design their studies in ways that make it impossible to know if they are valid. In this massive replication attempt of 100 psychology studies, only 36% could be successfully repeated. This means that when you stop scrolling at a reel where a psychologist shocks you by citing new fascinating research on human behaviour, it’s very likely rubbish.

Sadly, it’s also likely that the psychologist speaking believes what he’s saying.

Most psychology students are never even taught about the replication crisis. Peter Boghossian, a philosopher and critic of postmodernist influence in academia, once asked a class of psychology students whether they had ever heard of the replication crisis. Not even one raised their hand.

If the next generation of therapists and researchers isn't even aware of psychology’s biggest credibility problem, how can they be expected to fix it?

Why Psychology Won’t Self-Correct

Not only are discredited theories preserved, but psychology’s popular appeal ensures that these simplistic, easy-to-believe ideas spread as lies that run around the world before the truth can get its shoes on. Except psychology’s lies might never be outrun because the discipline has lost the ability and the incentive to falsify anything.

In medicine, bad treatments eventually disappear. If a surgeon continued to perform open surgery for a simple appendectomy, the profession would correct itself. In psychology, however, bad ideas never die. One reason for this is the "publish or perish" culture in academia. Instead of replicating previous studies, researchers are incentivised to pursue novel, eye-catching results that will get them media attention and funding. Replication is boring, and journals prefer headline-grabbing findings—even if those findings turn out to be unreliable.

This problem isn’t new. In 1939, Richard Feynman had a conversation with a psychology student who wanted to test whether modifying an experimental condition would change the outcome. He told her in detail how to correctly go about performing such a replication. Excited by this idea, she ran to her professor, only to be told:

“No, that would be a waste of time—just do something new.”

That attitude is still dominant today. Instead of proving whether a theory is real, psychologists simply keep adding onto it. This is how debunked concepts like self-esteem theory—which has been shown to have no meaningful impact on success or happiness—still appear in psychology textbooks, teaching programs, and research papers.

Why You Are Still Seeing Reels Promising “Self-Love”

To give you a concrete example: Neuroscience has repeatedly proven that consistent effort and small, incremental changes lead to lasting self-improvement. Studies on habit formation and goal setting show that challenging oneself daily leads to measurable psychological and neurological growth.

For postmodernists, however, this would not do—self-improvement implies a hierarchy, where “you” tomorrow is considered better than “you” today. Since postmodern thought demands the deconstruction of hierarchies, this idea must be rejected. Accepting self-improvement would also mean acknowledging that certain goals are objectively better than the present state—an unacceptable notion in a framework where all truths are relative.

But where is the evidence that these hierarchies are what make people ill? Furthermore, where is the evidence that dismantling them leads to recovery? Still, modern psychologists tell suffering patients week after week:

"What is perfection? Change the way you conceive perfection, and you won’t need to change anything at all."

This wouldn’t be tolerated in any other field of science. If you present with appendicitis and your surgeon told you to "reframe your narrative" instead of scheduling an appendectomy, you’d run for the door (although not getting very far since you would be in considerable pain.) When I told my psychotherapy supervisor at the University I was attending while doing my psychiatric residency, that reframing the concept of success didn’t help my patient, I was told to “trust the process.”

In psychology, subjectivity has become the standard and unfalsifiable ideas dominate the field that is left open to be manipulated by political and ideologically possessed actors with little regard (perhaps even disdain) for humankind.

Hannah Spier, MD

Psychiatrist