Dear J. Wyatt Ehrenfels,

I am a high school student graduating in a years time. From the 9th grade, I have considered being a psychologist. In the beginning of grade 11, I have been doing extensive research on psychology as a career- my finding are discouraging. I know with all my heart, I want to be a psychologist, I want to counsel, and help others, and i strongly believe being a psychologist is such a great way. However, there are so many negative factors.

Today, I was on your website, "What's wrong with Psychology" and my concerns have increased. As I said, I know with all my heart psychology is what I want to do, but i feel it is not wise. What do u recommend I do? I'm torn between changing my career plans, and sticking to it. If you recommend that I change my career, what careers do you deem to be as fulfilling as psychology- mind you I really don't want to switch, but i still want to be successful in life.

Your reply will be greatly appreciated!

* * *

Hello Dr. Ehrenfels I would like to thank you for your frank and so true observations and realities that you have published for students to read on the web. Before I read your postings, I researched "forever" on anything that I could find in regards to graduate school information. I am from Germany where I was unable to obtain a psychology degree (the love of my life profession). When I came to the U.S. 5 years ago, I thought I finally had the opportunity to fulfill my goal of becoming a psychologist. I am so disappointed and discouraged by now, I find it disgusting and frustrating. Why has the field of psychology reduced itself to an APA-obedient, student loan pounding, no-research option leading profession?

Let me explain (even though I think you know what I mean) what the former sentence meant. I worked for 4 years on my B.A. degree, did 1.5 years of research, 3.6 GPA ( A's and B's in all classes ) and did an internship, to get to the point, where I have to take a test (GRE) given by a company for profit that does apparently test my intelligence/ ability to get through graduate school. I did horrible on that test. Besides that, I have applied to 10 graduate institutions and might not get into any of them. I love psychology bit start to hate its professionals:

Summation : I believe, I worked hard enough ( I did my best), I have research experience and a co-authored paper presentation, I took an internship, I applied to 10 different schools ( which was a job in its own), to find out the following:

If I do not get accepted into any psychology doctorate program, I will probably get accepted into a Masters one. But this is another problem; psychology looks down on Masters degrees in their own field , like it is something inferior; getting an M.A. would not help me, because I don't know if any grad school would take me the second time around? Getting an MFT would put me in a position of doctorate programs question my sincerity about research and getting an MSW would put me out of the " race for psychology". WHERE THE HELL AM I SUPPOSED TO GO THEN??

I am disgusted by the APA constraints put on programs that give these the opportunity to squeeze 150, 000 Dollars out of students for a PsyD education, but restrict non-accredited finalists from the ability to find regular jobs.

I am thinking already of taking my B.A. and get out of the field, to just enter it trough a different door; taking a job from a psych professor who once told me that elitists views are what you need to succeed in psychology. I am thinking of going on for a MSW degree and then getting my Dr. PH (mental health concentration).

I am disappointed and sad how this is playing out.

The APA got it wrong and you got it right; I can tell because I am experiencing what you are writing about.

If this system of self-destruction continues within the field of psychology, it will change forever . Famous psychologist who have died a long time ago, would probably turn in their graves' , if they could see what has become of their interest.

Thanks again and if you have any comments on my 2 cents, let me know. I would appreciate it. Happy New Year.

* * *

I find the information on your website fireflysun.com incredibility interesting. I agree with you that there is a huge problem with the formal educational in academic courses such as psychology in regards to career and real-life purposes.

My question to you is, how then does a person who is passionately interested in psychology as a science to understand the human mind and psyche, approach the study of psychology?

True, there is no such thing as a psych career. But psychology is at work at every aspect of life itself. So having the knowledge of psychology (true psychology) gives a person great power in dealing with possibly all areas of life such as relating and communicating, business, learning, teaching, thinking, doing any thing... I believe that psychology in it's generic form is basically a category of knowledge. And knowledge can be gained by self-study more than any other way. A person who learns any kind of knowledge through the process of self study can become more learned and wise in that area than those who learn it through beuracratized educational systems.

So then how does he position himself as an expert or respectable authority in the field that he is so devoted and passionately studying in?

I don't think your independent thinking and ideal perspective of things got you into trouble. At least I don't think of it that way. You are not the problem, they are. The trouble is with them, and you're here to fix it. But not all of them can accept or are willing to acknowledge, that things are not right. Either because they have been stupified with themselves or they're not man enough to be authentic. They are selfish, self-serving, unenlightened, scary dumb etc...

People like Sigmund Freud and Anthony Robbins discovered profound truths about the reality of human nature and human change. But their ideas and perpectives were initially treated as controversial and hotly contended against by numerous people who have a stuck mindset in the fields of traditional psychology and psychiatry. It was only after awhile did more and more people realise that what they're talking about makes sense and start accepting it as the truths that should have been seen all along.
Like what Einstein said: Great minds will often face violent opposition from mediocore minds in their time. The world needs more people like you who fight for ideals to create a reformation in the systems that have been screwed by the (for lack of a better word) dumb idiots who devalue and degrade the things that are meant to increase the quality of human capability.

About the things that they make you read in formal education, if the person or the people in charge of the system have the acumen and proper mind to choose the right stuff to form the curriculum and syllabus of the course, then the people enrolling in it will be taught the right things and be well equiped to advance society and human knowledge to the next level.

But if the people in charge don't know what they're doing or don't know what it takes to make the important decisions in the most proper way, then the result of their irresponsibility and foolishness leads to the suffering and malfunctioning of society.

A genius has to take his own path because he finds it downright unacceptable to be lead by those who are blind and unable to see what he sees.

* * *

(This comes from an unknown individual discussing the results of his efforts to make sense of a big dream)

"The problem is, I don't know if dreams have any significance outside of their affect on one's psyche. I don't know if they can be prophetic, or if they are anything but the mind taking a little vacation, creating worldscapes that are only slightly outside the possibility of the waking world. But this dream was very loud, and I'm having a hard time ignoring it or relegating it to the realm of "frivolous mental activity". I know that almost everyone has their own understanding of dreams, and most of 'em are very very different. I imagine Edgar Cayce or Carl Jung would have an extremely different answer to this than perhaps Freud or Wyatt Ehrenfels and that's something I have a hard enough time with in itself. All four of them have amazing theories, and they are all very compelling and informative. I guess they all have something to say, even if none of them have the whole story. This is certainly something that warrants further thought."

* * *

(This comes from a clinical psychologist)

Hi Wyatt,

We connected briefly 3-4 years ago--I forget the context. But I do recall finding an article of yours somewhere at the time, and I appreciated your criticism of the worst that psychology has become.

I came upon you again because, after many years of psychotherapy practice, and 9 years post-PhD (University of Detroit--one of the few remaining depth/psychoanalytic programs around), I finally decided to take the EPPP.

In any case, I found out yesterday that I passed the exam. Along the way, one of the hardest struggles was the realization that I was giving up all this time to study material (about 7-10 weekly hours across 9 months)--80% of which is irrelevant to my practice, and 20% of which is related in rather superficial ways. And which reminded me over and over just how manualized, narrow-minded, and banal the field has become. Needless to say it was a grueling process for me. I hardly identify with the field of psychology, despite my title (though I prefer "psychotherapist"), and the exam process reminded me why.

I too (as you suggested in your EPPP article by way of a quote from some colleague) came to the conclusion that the exam must simply be an initiation rite, since it can't possibly stand up to logical scrutiny. A power trip by the powers-that-be to decide what THEY think is important, "scientific." Something designed to support the businesses which market expensive study materials, and the state boards which take $500 for the exam, for the applicant just to sit at a computer for 4.5 hours. I can't honestly come up with any other conclusion that relates to my being a clinical psychologist in particular.

I have a colleague, with a PhD from a reputable university; she teaches at U of M, and holds two clinical positions elsewhere. She has taken and failed the EPPP four times. What a pity that the system makes it so hard for some folks who have devoted their lives to the field--120 credits in graduate school (probably with great grades), a testing practicum, an internship--and all the other hurdles and checks along the way that you would think would suffice in such a diverse field as psychology to "prove oneself" worthy. But no. At least they could design an exam that covers the nuts and bolts of daily practice. And if that would weed out the whatever percent of grossly shabby practitioners that somehow made it through graduate school, then okay.

And so it was with a feeling of harmless sweet "revenge" that I read your article posted on the absurdity of the EPPP. Thank you! We need folks like you around.

I will continue to let people know about you, your ideas, as I continue myself to speak out about the sad absurdity that psychology, psychiatry, and mental health in general have become.

It all mirrors the fast food, microwave, simple-solution culture we have become, one that eschews individual differences. If you have problems concentrating, you must "have" ADHD, if you're too sad--clinical depression ("a biological disorder we now know"--yeah, right...half-truths), too up or too agitated--bi-polar, blah, blah, blah.

I suggested that the Michigan Society for Psychoanalytic Psychology (and the related Academy of the Psychoanalytic Arts) would probably like to host you one day, and I'm not sure how that would even work (not to mention, whether you'd have the time or interest).

I also wanted to clarify that I think these groups would welcome your ideas because they often feature lecturers and presenters (psychologists, psychoanalysts, physicians, and people from other disciplines) who examine (among other things) the issue of organizational dynamics in psychology--and the different ways in which they stifle people who think and work differently than the masses. They also examine manualized approaches to therapy which are borne from those forces. They once hosted a psychoanalyst who's also trained in Chinese medicine; he spoke of how he uses the insights of eastern science in facilitating his dynamic knowledge of his patients, using their somatic complaints. It was refreshing.

Certainly as psychoanalytic groups go--the members of MSPP are relatively open to new ideas and ways of thinking. Leaders in the group like Patrick Kavanaugh, Ph.D. (a former teacher and mentor of mine) and others there are outspoken about institutional dynamics in the field, and repressive elements that would interfere with a phenomenological, scientific and individualized approach to studying the psyche. Most of the group members, for example, are against the idea of certification in psychoanalysis--as they believe that the very idea impedes individuality, autonomy, and creative thinking.

I used to believe psychoanalysis was IT, then I rebelled against that too, because I discovered that, in its own way, organized psychoanalysis was prone to the same rule-bound and rigidified thinking that often exists in mainstream psychology circles; it's just cloaked differently. But MSPP (of which I am not currently a member) hardly represents mainstream psychoanalysis. Check their stuff out.

Anyway, I hope you find the time to browse those sites and I'm curious what you will think. I'd love to have the pleasure of hearing you speak in person someday.

"Without memory or desire" (Bion)....what a profoundly deep, complex notion--which I try to use in my work with people...and which I thought of again while reading your articles. The tension between the power of using concepts, and the risk that they will obscure new discoveries about people and the psyche.

Thanks for sharing your ideas with the public. It gives me an island of a home. Because I don't feel at home at all in psychology, and only somewhat comfortable in psychoanalytic circles. My girlfriend (a Rabbinic student actually, in a progressive, spiritually-minded group organization) has attended some seminars at the Gestalt Institute in Cleveland, and from what she describes about that group--it sounds like they are quite open to new ways of thinking, unafraid to ditch what they usually believe in order to discover something new. It's a little weird for someone of my professional background (well, they're not afraid of discussing transcendental phenomena--, past lives, spirits, etc), but I find it utterly refreshing, and daring. In the best way.

One day too, I shall have to read more Jung. In graduate school, Freud was the main order of the day. I loved Harold Searles writings on psychosis--because it seemed so oriented to the "individual" mind...and fortunately my testing prof. (Pat Kavanaugh, actually, of MSPP) had us read Ernst Schachter's works on the phenomenology of the Rorschach--good stuff, close to human experience.

Yes, we need to start from scratch to understand the human condition in any scientific way. We are too arrogant in what we think we "know", and too afraid to admit to knowing nothing or little. I see it every day. I see it in myself at times, of course. We are all human and prone to this. We all seek certainty and become scared in the abyss of why we're here on this planet, and how to understand war and suffering.

Thanks for being a brave soul.

* * *

(This comes from a radio show producer who operates a web site that raises awareness about gang stalking)

I've read your report. It is stunning, but the in-community 'skits' set up to target us ALSO show the fine hand of skit designers who are superbly qualified in behavioural sciences, so your revealing that psychologists harass you was not a surprise!

Keep giving 'em Hell!

* * *

Hi, J.W. I wanted to thank you for your website. It's what I've been telling myself for the past 13 years when I decided to leave Psychology after I finished my PhD. Your site made me feel better about my decision. I thought you might like to hear a few other "Careers Psychology" reasons from my perspective coming from Counseling Psychology.

In [YEAR DELETED] I was looking for a pre-doctoral Internship in Counseling Psychology. I had already been in school full-time 5 years after college and was becoming disillusioned with the field. There was a cynical, secular culture of "everyone is sick -they just don't know it." The field was much too liberal for me too. My wife, a professional [JOB TITLE DELETED] at the time who was supporting us, had a look of shock when I told her that upon graduation in [YEAR DELETED], I would have to look for my "dream job" in a college counseling center, making about $35,000 until I can find a Directorship to earn more in the future. That was less than she was making with her bachelors. She told me that she was hoping for the option to stay home and raise children (which we had been putting off). I told her not worry, I can teach at night a couple of courses (for an extra $4000 a semester). She then explained how much divorce attorneys cost and if I was interested in knowing my children!

I then thought of private practice, either full or as a supplement. Ha! I discovered it had the same failure rate of any small business, and since I was in grad school I didn't build up referral relationships with Psychiatrists and Hospitals in order to get a private practice going. Plus there's no health benefits, 401K, pension, etc. And Managed Care came along: social workers, from an open-admission program with a non-thesis masters and a multiple-choice licensing exam, were not only being REIMBURSED for therapy, they were supervising psychologists in clinical teams! Certain nurses, Masters-level School Psychologists, and even Bachelors those with certifications in substance abuse or vocational rehab, were also competing with me for reimbursement. The thought of struggling again after 6 years of struggling, and near age 30, was horrible and unfair to my wife who had been sacrificing enough already. Also, private practice is an evening and weekend job. Did I really go through so much to now work evenings and weekends?

Lastly, and this may seem self-centered, but after 6 years of tuition, lost wages, lower income, and "B.S.," I didn't want to struggle anymore. As my wife put it, "what do you have to show for your Ph.D?". So I used my statistical skills (which I was strong in) and got a job at a [STATE OMITTED] Ad Agency in their Marketing Sciences group, basically as an SPSS programmer and some forecast modeling. Not as stimulating as academia, but it paid $50,000 in 1994 which was $15,000 more than psychology jobs. And I had a clean office and day hours. I now work for a major Pharmaceutical Firm in their [DEPARTMENT OMITTED] group doing patient and market modeling. I am respected, feel appreciated, like my work, paid well, and my PhD holds some weight.

I have learned a truism about Career Development, regardless of what field you're in: do not focus on "career satisfaction." Focus on "Life Satisfaction." Your career is your whole life, not just the occupational component (which no one really remembers you for anyway). The Godfather of Counseling Psychology, Donald Super, spoke of such things back in the 1950's. The field did not listen.

thanks again.

* * *

(This comes from the recipient of a research PhD)

I don't like this martyr stuff. You're really coming off as some sort of hero. You make me wish I had failed out of graduate school.

* * *

(This comes from a Doctor of Psychology working as the manager of a children's center clinic).

I’m intrigued ...

I am in no way involved in research of empirical studies, my training has been entirely in the clinical area.

I agree with the statement below. I believe that your understanding of clinical psychology is accurate, and I have not read enough of your thoughts to know whether or not you account for a kind of complexity in the population of clinicial psychologists and in the process of training:

"Now clinical psychology is more diverse. The jobs available to licensed psychologists are as diverse as their pathology. Clinical psychology students want to be anything from Mother Theresa to Tony Robbins to Surgeon General. But please don't allow the diversity to distract you from the underlying pathology. Indeed the problems hide in the diversity."

In the field of psychology, I believe a frightening tension always exists between authority/power and the heroic myth (Mother Theresa, Tony Robbins, etc). The latter is unaware of the former, but its motives entirely dependent upon it. Those who enter the field, buy into the myth wholesale, and forget the process of self-discovery, curiosity, desire, and the dreaming of their own psyches can be said to be “pathological.”

Psychology is a monkey science. It should not be considered as anything more.

Not all modern psychology, by the way, is interested in controlling chaos. I believe that psychotherapists who embrace the chaotic, the creative, the degenerative and the regenerative processes of nature, wish to help people utilize the vast potential of chaos and change.

There is more to say. I will read more of your work.

* * *

(This comes from an assistant professor at a state university in Georgia. She asked her student, an undergraduate, to research the requirements for a career in Psychology. The student drew heavily from Ehrenfels career page)

"Thanks Wyatt. I can see why you would want to link to this presentation. This presentation was actually created by one of my undergraduate students last semester. My student told me that he wanted to be a Professor of Psychology. I told him that I wanted to see him give a presentation on what it takes to be a Professor of Psychology and to give me information about what his life would be like during and after his training. Since this presentation, it appears that he is at least rethinking his career path. Students should really understand what they are getting into and what they will get out of it – as his picture of the bottleneck masterfully demonstrates.

I am leaving academia this semester and most academic portions of my website will be taken down. However, below is the email of the student who created this presentation. You are welcome to ask him if you can use his presentation on your website. Maybe he will let you host the file off of your webspace. This is likely. He's a nice guy and pretty easy going.

* * *

(This comes from the above-mentioned psychology major Chris Todd, who asked to be on the record)

I know you.

Not only your name, but the ideas, convictions, and words, which are the basis for that name's rapidly increasing value in the field of psychology (whether the field recognizes it or not), precedes the email you sent me. I have read your book and the website that Dr. [NAME OF ADVISOR]'s powerpoint project synchronistically led me to, forcing me to choose between completing the project or saying "[EXPLETIVE] the project" and reading every little golden nugget on your site, which would have taken weeks.

You the last surviving psychologist in terms of what it should mean to be called a psychologist, and it is with cosmic irony that you, the only true steward of the truth of human nature has to use a pseudonym in order to protect himself in the pursuit of that inviolate truth. As Aristotle says, this is a non-contradiction. Is it rational that a person seeking truth should have to lie about his very namesake? It is when the people in charge of honoring the truth lie to themselves about honoring it. When i read about you, i became an immediate convert to your cause..i emailed you once to try to contribute my little piece of encouragement to your what you have chosen to do....the role of truthseeker is a lonely one....just ask Jesus, Galileo, and Ehrenfels, am i right?..hehe, anyways i thought to myself, this is the kind of crusade i would want to be a part of, would devote my life to; however, the state of the psychological institution as it is now, i'm just the kind of person who would benefit from a system of community, conformity, and likemindedness...i do not have the fiery individual creativity or genius for an institution, such as the one you directly experienced, to extinguish. The only service i could offer any leader of a crusade is my service as cannon fodder, and since your crusade is a non-violent one, i could only offer my services as coffee and bagel fetcher. But i would be proud to do it. The fact that i created something of a little value to you, the rockstar of psychology, will be the highlight of my psychological career, whatever that will consist of. I thank you for giving my powerpoint project the meaning that only you could have given it, you being the inspiration for it. Use it in anyway you please ... maybe you can return the favor and sign my copy of Fireflies (i think i finally grasped the meaning of the title) ... i have so many questions to ask you, doctor, but i'll wait for another time, you've got a crusade to fight ... Godspeed"

* * *

(Believe it or not, this message has been traced to a former member of the Iowa State of Psychology Examiners and liaison to the Board from the Iowa State Psychology Association)

I truly love that [Ehrenfels]. He and Jesness [another critical ethnographer] are serious competitors for the Olympic gold medal, for the 50 yard dash: run like hell to get away from people with brains.

I wish some of the scientists here would evaluate those two morons, to see how it is that anybody can be so clueless as to believe that they actually have supporters.

But I'm off topic: [Ehrenfels] might be able to write a little better, but he only writes while he flogs his meat (Vienna Sausage). His wifey quit giving him any a long, long time ago, since she can't stomach such a loser.

So, now Ehrenfels toys with himself. I wish he could get it up a bit aster, because maybe then he would write shorter crap.

Brimstone's best advocate.

* * *

I recently took the EPPP (last week), and had the feeling that this had little relevance, and was mind-numbing with the hair-splitting questions on minutae. I don't know if I passed or not, and I'm also not sure that studying a lot more would help me choose the "best" answer. I was trying to learn more about how this test was developed when I ran across your article on the EPPP. I must say that you validated several things I was thinking about it.

Keep up the good work. It is nice to see someone who has the nerve to question the way that this field is going with a disregard for the endless PC and dumbed-down approaches. It's too bad that they probably won't listen and will continue to stifle creativity and divergent thinking.

* * *

DearJ W Ehrenfels

I got myself into serious troubel (and proud of it) for speaking aginst how Psychologists take over the lives s of perfectly innocient people and demand their "clients" to live in the world the Psycologist themselves "dream up"! Anyway to make it short (I got to go) "Im happy for ya". Speak the truth as the truth itself witnesses the lies spoken by those more concerned about their own egos instead of "fact".

[NAME DELETED]

mike...@earthlink.net

EarthLink Revolves Around You.

* * *

Dear Sir

Thank you.

I have searched and searched for information pertaining to this subject, obviously reaching dead ends and brick walls during my quest.

May or may not get back to you about the content of your site, but I am impressed with your tenacity and belief in your work. I have held this belief close to my heart and transfer it to many professions, not only psychology. I had toyed with the idea of studying psychology - but always I had doubts as to the actual profession. I found that there was very little ability on the part of many psychs to see in their patient what was so obvious to a lay person or even the proverbial blind man. It seemed that study in the field of psychology has the capacity to negate or even 'remove' empathy within the student, therefore rendering him impotent and ineffective in his/her chosen field. Statistics and Bell curves. Diagnostic Criteria, spread sheets. What about the human? What about a hug?

Important. You are important.

* * *

Sir,

I was reading your essay on extreme prejudice, and was quite impressed. Your vocabulary challenged me, as precious few vocabularies do, and for that I thank you. Your writing style is excellent, it made it possible for me to take you seriously instead of disregarding you as another dissatisfied quack longing for a moment in the sun. However, I did note one flaw that stands a good chance of eliminating any effect your work might have on the psychological community. You made use of popular culture references, specifically to The Matrix. The fact is that, no matter how valid your point, this reference only makes you look juvenile to your peers. Any reference to a work that has not gained the respect of the community to which it is addressed will only detract from the effect of the statement it is intended to make.

I have not read your other works, but if they also include such references as this, it is no mystery to me that you have not received the credit you deserve from the scientific community. I humbly advise you to adopt more care in your choice of metaphors, as there is much more acceptable material that can be used to precisely the same effect. Nothing new under the sun.

If you feel inclined to contact me, do not respond to this address, as I will likely never get the e-mail. Write to Ashton_Whithers@juno.com and I will receive it eventually. Best of luck.

Your in all sincerity,

* * *

I'm just wondering if you know the origins of your name Ehrenfels? It's my middle name and I'm thinking of making it my last name. My parents (who are now both dead) told me I was conceived near the castle of Ehrenfels in Germany. I've heard it means 'rock of honor'. But I really don't 'know' anything else about it... where it comes from, what it actually means... My first name is [NAME DELETED], which quickly became [NAME DELETED].

If you have a thought or a moment to spend on this enticing question, do respond! I'd be so happy to hear from you!

- [NAME DELETED] (of New York City)

* * *

(This comes from a Clinical Psychology PhD Recipient)

Read your enlightening article on EPPP and the farce that it is...I just failed it for the 3rd time...after spending thousands on workshops, materials travel hotel....computer programs...etc not to mention the testings fees each time...I cannot attend my orals unless I pass this bloody test....I won't keep my present job without a licence...won't get a raise...without licence and on and on...the best part is I have one more chance to sit the exam...in [CITY DELETED) only 4 chances....then what my PhD down the tubes..do I work unregulated...??? I need direction, advice...or maybe just comfort...I enjoy your website...it makes so much sense...thank you for shining a bright light on things....

I'll keep in touch and keep supporting the website...and I will pass it on to my colleagues

* * *

(This lofty dispensation comes from a graduate student and moderator of a psychology news group in response to the following text on my web site: "I think you will find from a review of my web site that despite some zealous rhetoric, the criticisms are grounded in a selfless advocacy for dreaming, science, and psychology students...")

What a load of crap.

Selfless? No. Utterly self centered.

Zealous rhetoric? No. Masturbatory kook screed.

Grounded? Not on any planet that has gravity.

Science? Ehrenfels couldn't cut it.

Advocacy for psychology students? PULEASE... that web site does nothing but criticize a psychology student: ME*. What a retarded jackass he is. Doesn't even understand cognitive psychology. Actually doesn't understand anything.

GET A JOB.

* Concerned that the marketability of her role as news group moderator on her curriculum vita would be adversely affected by my report of cyberstalking in the news group, the student in question filed a complaint with my web host. When the student writes that my web site "does nothing but criticize...[her]," she is referring to my response to her complaint in the body of the report.

* * *

Dr. Ehrenfels,

Hello, my name is [NAME DELETED] and I am currently a student at Florida International University.

I have to write a reaction paper in one of your essays. Our professor has told us is the one that the topic is about all professors and psychologist having borderline disorder. I have done a search in Google but yet have not found anything. Is there anyway that you the author could tell me the correct title for this paper?

This reaction paper has to be done for my senior lab, Psychological Development.

Thanks

* * *

Hi,

Upon searching for graduate schools I came across your FireFlySun.com website. It is a very interesting and intriguing website at that ! So much psychology bashing as well. I have never heard of your book, but perhaps I will pick a copy up someday. I am curious though as to why you believe all of those things and how your graduate studies went (for a future student looking into it). I assume you're very busy, but if you're not, drop me a line so we could discuss the fascinating world of "psychology".

First of all, wow. What great accomplishments you have tackled. I am sorry to hear about your overwhelment of recent events affecting you. I am really grateful and glad that you responded back to my email. I was wondering, and no pressure needed, but I would like a mentor....as of right now, I have no one to guide me or give me insight into this difficult process of psychology and what not. You seem easy to talk to, and perhaps could share a wide array of insight to me to what the profession will be like and etc. Second, how and why did you enroll in 3 undergrad programs, and 3 grad programs?! My goodness, here I am freaking out by college year, and grad school. I have already options in my mind as to what I want to do with my future (so far).

I am a freshman student at [UNIVERSITY OMITTED]. I am majoring in Psychology (of course), minoring in Communications, and hopefully finishing an International Relations Certificate. For Grad school purposes, I am thinking of going into Counseling Psychology to become a counselor and whatnot. My backups would be a master in International Service Learning or whatever (a new program I came across last night while researching for internships and study abroad, and etc). Also, I am interested in the Foreign Service with the U.S. State Department. Well, that's me so far...in a nutshell. A naive, and anxious little girl trying to make sense of what I want to do in life and trying to plan it all. It never helps to be too prepared eh? But But again, your background and expertise are quite fascinating and astonishing. I would really love it if you could help answer my stupid, annoying questions and at least...be a helping hand to me (even though it's only via internet and all) every little bit of help counts. Don't get me wrong though, I do consult my advisors, and stuff. I have not yet found a professor(s) that I can truely count on or rely on yet...(again, i am only a freshman). Next semester though, in the fall I plan on joining a research group in hopes to better know some professors for my future goals.

Ok enough rambling and stuff. Take your time and good luck with you and all of your endeavors. Hope your family is doing well.

Till next time.

* * *

Hola:

Thank you so much for such a great article about the Gallup Interview system. I just want to say that you used the precise words to describe my frustration with the last interview I got with them. In first place, I think if a company has an HR department with prepared "Human Resources" interviewers, you don't need to use a second or third party to put you as another dot in their survey graphs.

The interviewer from Gallup was at the phone with me for more than 1.5 hours asking me the same questions over and over (about 120 questions I think) and yes, I need to show examples of all my accomplishments, errors, prices, and my day by day at work or during my life. After the first 35 questions I was already tired and thinking about "What is the purpose of asking me the same questions if I already gave the interviewer an answer and a good example?" Well, I worked as an interviewer too in two different companies and even though we used behavioral interviewing techniques, we also evaluate communication skills, people skills, and adaptability. I strongly believe in face to face interviewing.

I ended up with no feed-back from Gallup in order to improve my answers or interviewing skills for next time, neither the company that hired them gave me feedback. I was surprise also that neither Gallup or the Company called me or e-mailed me to talk about "Why" they were not moving forward with more interviews. I fell I got a good interview with the HR representative of the company I was applying and with the Gallup representative. Well, the lack of communication from both sources is also a good indicative of a mediocre work environment. It was a good experience for me and I learned how you should NOT conduct an interview process with a possible good candidate.

Have a wonderful day

* * *

Dear Wyatt Enhrenfels,

I'd just like to say thank you. I'm a second year student of psychology and philosophy. I have just come accross you're website and have been captivated by your writing. "The student who has the simplest time in these programs are those who are not likely to be sidelined by their own ruminations." This is just one quote out of many that strikes a chord with me. Numerous times have struggled with similar thoughts about "how am I supposed to think when I'm too busy memorizing this shit." I have to take half of a full course load so that I can actually think about the topics I come accross but even this doesn't leave enough time to actually think. I am constantly struggling with myself thinking that there is something wrong with me; thinking that I'm too slow and not fit for a profession in psychology. I'm not slow, thinking takes time. More and more I am realizing that there is nothing wrong with me and that I shouldn't have to swallow this material just to spit it out again come exam time. Shouldn't education be about digesting what is good for us so that it provides nourishment to grow. I am not recieving an education. I am not recieving nourishment. I'm am paying thousands of hard earned dollars a year to memorize as much as I can in as short a period of time as possible so that I can write a test and be pushed through the system. I can't help but think that at the end of all this time, money, stress, and hardwork I'll be left with nothing but a brain that has been turned to mush; with little more than a piece of paper as compensation. Compensation, ha! All I wanted was an education.

* * *

I think your advice is valuable in that it allows people not to be blind to the realities of how difficult it is to gain entrance into the field of clinical psychology (both graduate school wise and post grad). However, I mean no offense when the way you state things as categorically one way really hurts your argument. There are always two sides to each coin and I think that you only represent 1 side. Your opinions are very negative and seem almost doomsdayish.

I am entering a clinical PhD program in the fall and am very excited to reach the next step of my career. I know its a long road full of challenges but I feel up to it. I thank you for making me aware of some key issues in the field. However, I don't think the situation is quite as bleak as you paint it. Anyone who gets to a PhD program realizes just how competitive the field is, but its part of the appeal I believe. People like to be challenged in life.

I'd encourage you to take a step back and listen to some of the things you are saying. It almost sounds like you believe there is a conspiracy theory in the field. I mean you no disrespect again, I just think looking at the total picture instead of parts is always more fruitful.

Thank you again for your insightful advice.

Response from firefly:

I appreciate your remarks on my rhetorical style, and I assure that my reasons for having adopted this presentational strategy is grounded in years of experience. The persona that is Wyatt Ehrenfels has been through an experimental phase and, like everything else, adapts and evolves to meet the pressures of its surrounding. Having once made more dispassionate statements (Wyatt Ehrenfels V 1.0 circa 2001), I still drew the kind of criticism you are throwing my way right now. And I suspect it would be in your best interests for me to reprise a pale, more milquetoast imitation of myself.

I have learned to look at things this way: it is important that I serve as a counterweight to the "all is well" alarm routinely sounded by the all-too-common psych prof. Why should I be bullied into embodying balance when you are imbalanced and when I am not bound by the constraints of your profession to be as others would have me be? This is the one perk to having been closed out of your profession. And yet you would still require that I burden myself with all the arbitrary, superfluous, and restrictive norms that bind you.

I too love a challenge, but having been an undergraduate and having known so many throughout the years, I can promise you that few psychology majors are aware of the challenges that lie ahead and too many of them will learn about these challenges at a time and in a way that they won't be able to appreciate them ... because they won't be able to do anything about them. The psychology professor has a captive audience, a visible authority, and some control over the lives of their students. So when the all-too-common psych profs takes advantage of our respective positions by offering defensive reassurances to students who approach them with concerns about what they read on my web site -- that it all sounds like "sour grapes" to them and that I brought all my misfortune down on my own head -- I think they're doing their students a real disservice (certainly more than I have ever done anyone by being a little 'on the nose' with my statements).

I agree that awareness of these issues will give certain students a remarkable advantage (and a little defensive pessimism may even make the difference between success and failure for some students). This is not only why I do what I do, but why I do it the WAY I do. Nevertheless, it helps to keep my fingers on the pulse of the student community, and I thank you for making that possible by reciprocating with some "straight talk" of your own.

Hopefully, you will all find success, enough to keep you up nights pondering just how to evaluate the validity of my claims (but not enough so that you are running around telling the less fortunates how much of a crackpot you think I am [har har]).

* * *

The above is true [cites Ehrenfels's lampooning description of publishing], but is hardly unique to psychology. It is true in ALL doctoral programs, in ALL schools, regardless of reputation of the school or the area of stufy.

I'm a permanent ABD in Psych for a variety of reasons....passed comps and completed two chapters of dissertation before I realized I didn't need it to do what I wanted to do AND that it wouldn't make me any more money or prestige AND that I didn't need it just because my ex-wife had hers.

You make a lot of valid points, though I am afraid that you're tilting at windmills. Of course I'd NEVER try to stop anyone from doing so if that was their wish, any more than I'd try to stop google from indexing the net. The problem isn't with google...it is with the idiots that write all the crap. You can find a lot of private info on google, but people have been finding such for years, just not quite as quickly and easily.

cheers, and good luck in your struggle.

* * *

Just wanted to mention that what I've read so far seems right on target for me - reminds me of my greulling four years as a psych resident in a very biologically-oriented hospital.

* * *

(This comes from a graduate student at a university in Florida)

A colleague of mine at [UNIVERSITY DELETED] sent me a link to your home page. I have ordered your book because you have spoken to my soul and personal experience in obtaining my graduate training in psychology. As such, I am compelled to send you a note with my personal experiences.

I already have a Masters degree in mental health counseling from [UNIVERSITY DELETED]. I recall the admissions rep telling us if we wanted a psychology degree we should quit now and go in that direction, for the two were different. Not clearly understanding the difference, I stayed, and was trained by exceptional psychologists who appeared to deliver a mixture of theory, technique and compassionate caring for clients.

I learned more in that program than I would learn at my next adventure in psychology. I opted to continue to pursue the elusive 'doctorate' in clinical psychology, naively thinking that clinical meant understanding more about a particular disorder or improving my skills in research or client treatment. I applied for and was admitted to a doctoral program in clinical psychology from a professional school. I was told it was a generalist program with a child track. Great. Perfect. Right? ..Wrong.

They promised a challenging program. In fact, I learned less than I already had learned in my other degree, excepting, of course, psychological assessment, which was not heavily emphasized in the MHC program. It became abundantly clear with each 'merger' that the program was cranking out only those who would meet a specific 'ideal image' which had been crafted by the director of training, who so rigidly held both the students and professors that the professors were only allowed to teach her method and from her guidelines. What??? I thought this was psychology, the ever expanding field of human understanding. Instead, I saw students being cut from the program, one by one, each for a politically correct and psychologically sound explanation, when in reality what was occuring was a complete and utter bias against the physically challenged, culturally different, race or body image. Instead, I witnessed acadmically inferior young, pretty (Kelly or Jennifer?) students pass 'oral comps' while others who were academically superior, and, in my opinion 'targeted', were failed and made to jump through unbelievable hoops, all in the name of academic rigor. What rigor? The reality was that these students were identified for any perceived weakness, and those weaknesses were exploited, often with the result of driving the student from the program. Of course, then the director would use the explanation that some students were not cut out for the field of psychology . Most of the students I knew transferred to other programs, some within the same organization and graduated.

And I was one of those students. I started the program healthy and motivated. I left the program with high blood pressure and began to question whether they were right and maybe I was not cut out for psychology. And then I came back to reality. What? Had I, who had already been admitted to not one but two graduate programs, began to buy into their belief system? So I opted to find a program which embraced differences and itself , while APA accredited, is different from the masses in terms of training programs. What I have found here is liberation, and a program which encourages independent thinking. I feel like the scarecrow who has just been given his brain. Although I have to redo, yet again, much of my training, I am encouraged by the difference in perspective. And I have regained my belief in the field of psychology.

So I wanted to send a note to let you know that even in one school, there may be hope out there for dreamers who believe in human kindness and the quest for knowledge that does not require everyone to fit into the mold. I live in Florida. Disney World used to hire everyone who looked exactly the same; hair, height, weight, color. Now they exemplify diversity, and a walk through the parks is like a walk around the world. Maybe we could learn something from Mickey Mouse.

Your writing is a wake up call to the profession and I hope they listen. I can't wait to get your book.

* * *

(This comes from a psychiatrist respecializing in Psychology)

My name is [NAME DELETED]. I finished my M.D. in [YEAR DELETED] and was going into psychiatry but quit due to the disgusting materialism of the field. I am now looking at instead going into psychology and am running into similar obstacles. I've considered writing a book about my experiences and I'm sure it would have a great deal in common with yours. I see so much of what you see in the mental health field and find it appalling. We have much to discuss. I could write pages but I'd rather save it for our discussion. Perhaps you can offer some insight into my current situation, as well.

(This comes from Australia)

I will definitely get myself a copy of your book, as the synergy of this whole discovery of the website etc is something that has completely energized me to heights I haven't felt for years. I dont think it is an accident. I have been forced to rest as a result of snapping my achilles tendon and as a result decided to finish reading Memories Dreams and Reflections, so I was really amazed to find your excerpts from it at this time, posted on the website. I am nearly through the book. It has been inspirational.

Buddha achieved enlightenment under a tree and it is amazing that people dont realise they dont have to be dressed up in a sarong and wandering around in India to have their eyes opened. You are a living example of that. I am extremely impressed by your tenacity and willingness to take a stand, expecially in a field like yours where you can be so easily vilified by the press and so called professionals...I absolutely love your bit about imagination masturbation...Anyway I just wanted to thank you for inspiring me to continue. I think you have big balls for taking on something like that. I am not a writer, dont have the talents. But I believe very passionately that I have something to say. I am not willing to go through an agent, I am holding out to be led to someone who will read my script and it will hit him so hard he just cant turn away from it. I dont want some person to try to fit me into a mould somewhere. I have never managed to meet anyone that has been as interested in dreams and however you would describe what I believe in so strongly. I really wish you lived down the road. I believe we would have a lot to talk about. Your book is not available locally but I will order it, and look forward to reading it. Good luck with it. If it changes one person, you will have succeeded.

I have been working on my script/book over the last 5 years and never really had time to devote to finishing it. I have collected books along the way and will obviously get yours too. From time to time when a dream comes along that forces me to wake up in the night and record the contents, I have added to it and the story has evolved out of these experiences. If you have the time to read it I would love to send a copy to you. And have your comments. I dont think this is just a coincidence. I believe we are led to meet the people that we are meant to.

I live on 35 acres in the foothills below [LOCALITY DELETED], NSW Australia, although I am originally from South Africa. It has been my vision since being drawn here some years ago to start a dream farm on my property. I have recently started the process of getting plans passed for some cabins on my property. I wanted to invite people that I met that were as passionate about dreams as I am to stay and create a place where hopefully the synergy and focus on dreams resulted in a spiritual location and focus. We are located in the largest extinct volcano crater I believe in the world. It is a place of some significance to the Aboriginal people who lived here. Then I discovered the website. Wow what a relief!

* * *

(This comes from an undergraduate psychology major)

thanks, wyatt. if there's one thing i've learned in my life thus far...it's to listen and consider the past experiences of others. i think these reports will help me through a lot of tough decisions in my future. thanks for all the help.

* * *

(This comes from a graduate student at a university in California)

I read your report on the psychologists stalking of you. I thought it hilarious. I mean, what is their problem?! I think you're doing them a favor by limited them to the label criminal. I'm not clinical psychologist, but they've got serious issues. It's not that they're so angry and obsessive, but that they don't know how badly they come off.

I'd appreciate it if you could e-mail me the dates of your TV program. I hope for your sake that none of the faculty will see it air. What will you do if they see it?

Response from firefly:

Thanks for the note of support. Yeah, their threads are difficult to follow. They are laced with a menacing vulgarity and threats. A number of inconsistencies in their depiction of "Wyatt Ehrenfels" suggests they are resorting to lying in an effort to manage a false perception of him. And as you are well aware given our shared history, they clearly have the wrong guy (har har). While the juvenile nature of the posts gives the impression of teenage hackers, drug users, and dropouts, the same aliases can on rare occasions present themselves professionally, but even when they do, it is usually to abuse the DSM to depict "Wyatt Ehrenfels" as having some code-able case of narcissistic personality disorder. Not only does it give the DSM a bad rap, but also for people to buy into this definition of the disorder, they would have to accept that just about every newspaper columnist and just about every advocate ranging from Martin Luther to Martin Luther King, Jr., would be "narcissists." What is so perplexing, and what you probably don't know, is that while these gangbangers have addressed me for close to a year now (and I assume they're still addressing me although I haven't read anything in 5 weeks), not once has any one of them sought to refute my argument by addressing its intrinsic logic. They seek to dismiss or disqualify it by hanging such unfavorable labels on the messenger: everything from presumptions of arrogance to absurdly meaningless charges of 'kookery.' The term "kook" is foolish, and merely refers to someone with a divergent point of view. The problem is that because they never post anything on topic (everything they post is an ad hominem flame) and because they never addressed my argument, no one knows what it is they are really objecting to, which empowers my readers to assume that they fear or envy my swashbuckling anti-establishment iconoclasm. I say this tongue n' cheek of course, but as satanists, skeptics, and anarchists, many of these psych profs, professionals, and non-degree holding supplicants hate the world, which is why they live on Usenet. Naturally, I set myself up for this kind of harassment when I developed a book and web site that not only earned me a reputation they seek but that did so through an expression of views they dislike (for whatever reason, though I assume because it casts their profession in a less-than-perfect light). Anyway, the last time anyone checked, unconventional wisdom is not a DSM diagnostic category. "Wyatt Ehrenfels" does not post to Usenet and the web site outlines a high-minded, issue-driven critique in an effort to enhance an institution. Rather than ignoring Ehrenfels or attempting to refute him, they resort to lies and threats, none of which approximate educated speculation, motivated misunderstanding, or even subjective judgment, but outright malicious fabrication. And the campaign of lies does not relent. It persists over the months without provocation from Ehrenfels himself, who eventually resorted to composing a web report for the benefit of his own readers who may have happened across this pestilence. However, having said that, I have learned not to bite the hand that feeds. The pestilence in Usenet has proven beneficial. "Wyatt Ehrenfels" has handled them with professionalism and dignity, all of which serves as credible support for his claims. And people seem to agree when they write something to the effect of "at least it sells books."

As for the program, I wouldn't worry about that. I know you're still a grad student, so it's hard for you to imagine a world that is not completely under their control, but I've left their jurisdiction. What could they possibly do to me?

(This comes from a graduate student. She replied to some advice I offered another graduate student on a psychology graduate student listserv)

I went to the link attached at the bottom of your e-mail. I can't tell you how much I appreciate your site! I had a deafening experience when I applied to enter a scholarship program which motivated me to seek further preparation on all levels. Thank you so much for using your painful experience as a source of strength to us gulliable "up and comers". I was definitely surprised when I detected a note of hostility from someone on the panel. And naively expected a supportive attitude.

Your are the best!

* * *

(This comes from an undergraduate psychology major)

Hi my name is [NAME OMITTED] and i am near graduation as a Psychology major. This site has been a "Godsend" and i just found it today...tis early to really say much...there is a wellspring of information here...but...the reason i found this site is because of the very issues addressed here. All that i read here are things that have be in my mind and not addressed by anyone else in the field. These are things i discuss with otther students, but most seem to just glaze over and say some form of the old cliche about "you can't fight City Hall"...at this point i need to read more here, but thanks for opening these important ideas to the light of day

* * *

(This comes from a graduate student at a university in Massachusetts)

My name is [NAME DELETED], I recently decided to take off from Umass to secure my brain. I feel alot of what you are saying. I have had problems with research in that I feel that people, namely acadamia, does not give the youth of our nation enough room to form their own valid and sound theories within ones own work. we are left to regurgitate old material in the same way everyone else in the class does, and then given an A for effort whereas if you go out on a limb one is given a C for being too vague, hypothetical, or not citing "professionals" who could back up your words. I was wondering which universities or organizations you were affiliated with? I look forward to supporting your book? I hope that this is one of the many works which are taking a bolder step in the direction of finding a more true, genuine, and admirable culture for Americans to be proud of, rather than the capitalistic, twisted, violated, sorry excuse for a democracy that we are "supporting" and standing behind at this time.

* * *

(This comes from an anonymous individual who posted to a stalking listserv a note supportive of Ehrenfels's feature essay, Look Who's Stalking Now, which dissects efforts by a stalking ring, composed of mental health professionals, to menace Wyatt Ehrenfels and others seeking reform of Psychology)

This is an interesting essay and many of the points made are supported (directly or indirectly) by others. For instance, Ehrenfels' points about a small group being able to control knowledge, etc. are backed up in a recent book:

Walters, R., 2003. Deviant knowledge: criminology, politics and policy. Cullompton, Devon: Willan Publishing

I would also say, having researched stalking and cyberstalking for a number of years, that nothing surprises me any more about the activities of stalkers. There has recently been a case of a UK scientist being jailed for life after stalking 200 victims... just because they disagreed with him or annoyed him in other ways. I've also come across several cases of group stalking where victims were placed in very dangerous situations. If these things can happen, anything can!

I won't offer any other comments because I am (indirectly) connected to Ehrenfels' story and could be accused of having a conflict of interest.

* * *

(This comes from a licensed psychologist in New York)

I have not yet gotten to the specifics of your disagreement with psychology, but I would bet that I agree with you entirely.

In 1968, I began what would become a complete reconceptualization of psychological science. The reason for what became a long and arduous journey was my realization, while teaching employee motivation to graduate students in engineering, that no psychologist writing on the subject at that time had any idea what motivation was all about.

The results of my effort are now in book form as [BOOK TITLE OMITTED], which I published in 1990. Should you be interested, I would like nothing more than to send you a copy.

As for the resistance you are experiencing, it is my understanding that this has always been the case, not just in psychology but in every field. And there is good reason for it. If, for example, my particular work is ever accepted, it will mean that virtually all the current books written on psychology will have to be scrapped. That change would, I don't have to tell you, have tremendous ramifications in both the scholastic world and the publishing world. These ramifications would not be positive. So, I would urge you to simply disregard the resistance, which is what I do, and keep moving forward. Not incidentally, there will be kindred spirits out there that you will not hear from until your work is generally accepted.

I would like to be able to reciprocate by reading your book. However, I have two serious eye conditions, one of which is very serious. For this reason, I try to limit my reading to what I can get off the Internet and then enlarge on the screen. This e-mail itself is generated by voice recognition technology. So, any flow of information will necessarily have to be in one direction, except for what in later months you might be able to send me by e-mail.

* * *

(This comes from a business consultant with a Ph.D. in I/O Psychology)

Thanks for your note. Your observations of the unprofessional psychologists is right on. My observation is that too many of them are scared and desperate. The fear is that they will become obsolete. They are being defeated by managed care as well as their competition -- that being social workers, all kinds of counselors, nurses, lawyers, ministers. Another theme I am seeing is a global one. As preface to this -- I several years ago went to a UN conference and a journalist presenter spoke of classification of countries -- that being classified by their major management problems. Third world countries have as major problems production and distribution of goods and services to their populations while other world countries such as the US have as major problems the management of waste and disposal. In the US there is much garbage, excess production and capacity, and certainly no problems with distribution. In third world countries there is starvation and serious production and distribution problems. In the US there is much production of Ph.Ds. for example -- to the degree that it becomes waste because there are few opportunities for them to be productive and thus they are waste. Many Ph.Ds. are very underemployed, scared of becoming unemployed, desperate for promotions. All this makes for a big problem and war.

There is another observation -- what you are doing I think is analogous to what Tom Peters is doing -- see his book title --"Re-Imagine!" There is a revolution going on.

* * *

(This comes from a participant in a psychology discussion forum)

My name is [NAME OMITTED]. I followed your link from [sci.psychology.psychotherapy "news group"] and read every word regarding the cyberstalking. I have been a victim in google groups of cyber stalking, and it was taken to real life (not by a SPP leader either)...I actaully agree with much of what you say. Cyber stalking happens everywhere. I was a victim of it, never having heard of SPP at that time. Your book, website and moderated [Yahoo] group is of great interest to me. In personal life I have been through a ton of professionals and I am no better off now, then I was when I was 11 years old. I am quite reluctant to post in any group for fear of being exposed and shunned. On the other hand, I wanted to let you know, that even though I liked the people in SPP, I also completely agree with what you have to say overall about the psych field. There have been several times when I (the one who is suppose to have problems) have shook my head in amazement after meeting a therapist or shrink for the first time, and read the diagnosis and recommendations after a maximum 45 minute discussion. I am now [AGE OMITTED]. There have been several encounters.

I will probably not feel comfortable speaking openly in your group because everyone sounds so intellectual, and I fear I might not make a shred of sense. But I did want to let you know, that I am very impressed with your work. So much so, that this is the first time, I have shared my actual ISP and screen name with anyone whom I don't really know.

In closing, I just wanted to say thank you for confirming many of the views I have harboured about the field for many years. I studied psychology in University for 2 years, and abandoned it for several reasons. Some of those being things you have mentioned in your book and website. (I'v not ordered the book, read the excerpts) But probably will order the book.

I will continue to read your group, and hope you will share what dangers occur, when therapists and psychiatrists make errors in diagnosis, and rush to diagnose and prescribe. My personal problems with the field are likely minimal compared to what others may have gone through.

* * *

(Wyatt's single post critical about the Gallup Organization's recruitment procedures, well within the scope of the I/O listserv, drew a flurry of posts from participants characterizing Wyatt's post as SPAM and lamenting his burden of their inboxes. Oddly, the number of psychology folk weighing in with congratulatory support for the opposition to Wyatt at least quadrupled the handful of posts Wyatt contributed over the 2 year period). This comes from a doctoral student, specializing in leadership studies at a Northern Virginia university, defending Wyatt on the APA listserv:

I understand your frustration, but I am not sure that is the best way to approach this. I haven't read all of the posts, but from what I've read, I must say...I don't think he has done anything wrong...

In fact, I think he has been respectful to this audience, even when others have been disrespectful towards him.

I can only speak for myself, but this idea of ignoring sounds like something you do in an AOL chatroom. To be frank, it sounds like a passive aggressive tactic aimed at censoring~but this is just my opinion...

It would also send quite a message to subscribers (i.e., others will be less likely to share opinions and ideas that go against the status quo out of fear of being snubbed.)

(Another student, writing from "Downunder," had this to say to add to those fiercely and vacuously dismissive of Wyatt):

Quite the contrary. I find this discussion perhaps a bit verbose at times but certainly more stimulating than the endless listing of which school and what, who and where will one go to attend a good I/O course in the US ... I appreciate that this searching is of great importance to many of those who have joined this list and am happy enough just to pick them up in batches of email and drop them away in cyberspace. Indeed, you may do the same to this list of emails. However, the world of Psychology is fascinating and discussion, even argument, and a continuing supply of information make it far more alive for me.

* * *

Wow! Well said! To be honest, I delete about half the emails I get through this listserve. I was wondering if you could send me a link to your website they keep referring to...I seem to be missing half of the referant posts for this discussion...

I am glad you do have thick skin (and the wit to respond so well), I imagine that many in your shoes would have backed off after that especially condescending post.

Response from firefly:

Thank you. I appreciate the resounding and public show of support. Most of those who support my choice to voice disagreement with this field feel they have to do so backchannel (privately) for reasons I can only imagine amount to pressure from their peers. You and every other student of leadership on this list should recognize the optimistic note in my message. All that energy in my message, and all the vivid language and rhetoric and imagery, that many psychology insiders misattribute to venom or revenge is actually fueled by the glorious good news: that there is no pre-set definition of what it takes to succeed as a scientist and educator. Despite the community's best attempts to put all these patrician norms out there, the body of knowledge we organized from these routines is grossly inadequate in some places and flawed in others. There is still room for pioneering in this field, room for you to develop an individualized style of leadership, if only they'd let you. If only they'd stop interfering with discretionary use of your wits and genuine professional development. Many of your peers want to see me fail because they have grown accustomed (if not attached to) a system that rewards their dependence, like-mindedness, and lack of initiative. They worry that they have nothing to bring to the table and that if they were responsible for creating their own future that they would find themselves unable to compete for a niche in this field. They flourish in an environment in which professionals with no vision of the field and no real sense of themselves surrender their wits and freedoms in exchange for access to external sources of guidance and validation. It's simple. It's streamlined. It's systematic (more accurately, ritualistic). And all they have to do is listen to what other people tell them to do.

* * *

(This comes from a professional cellist)

Hi, I like your website and ideals! We have a problem in Minnesota...looking for help: Twin Cities influential psychologist publishes insults, disseminates discriminatory philosophy:

"Counting on people with passive-aggressive personality disorder is like counting on the weather ---you can't, and they will get you if you try." p. 170

"If interpersonal martyrdom were a virtue, the people in the "anxious" group of personality disorders would be saints." p. 170

"Greta Garbo's famous plea---" I want to be alone"-- may not reflect a serious personality problem on her part, but it is the rallying cry of those with schizoid personality disorder, or it would be if they were likely to rally." p. 81

Gary Fischler actually states that people with "schizophrenia" are "disinterested in promotions" and will actually be damaged if they are promoted. He states that most people with "mental illness" should not work with others because they are "distracting" and "look and act odd". That ALL people with depression should be limited to simple tasks....etc...

Gary Fischler is Minnesota Voc Rehab's chief psychologist, seeing over 800 people a year, and Minneapolis Police dept. chief psychologist. Please help! For more quotes see http://www.minnesotavocrehab.com/fischler.html

We need support outside of Twin Cities. Everyone here seems to know this person, and is unwilling to take a stand against philosophy! If you disagree, may I ask that you please send me an email, and if you will, please also write permission for me to publish it on the website.

* * *

(This comes from a retired academic/professional responding to my post on a listserv)

One of the worst happenings is the institutionalization of a profession. Look at sociology and other fields. The minute they went into academic setting specific to the new found science you lost the Max Weber's of the world. The great thinkers in all of these areas did not train as psychology majors or sociologists. they came from a broad area of study and reading as well as keen skills at observing and analyzing. What schools turn out for the most part are technicians following the most immediate trend. Accrediting bodies do not help either especially when they criticise a professors bibliography because it has refrences more than ten years old. it is so nice being retired.

* * *

(This comes from an adjunct instructor at an independent college in the D.C. Metropolitan Area)

WOW, YEAHHHHHHHHHH....THERE IT IS, THE VERY THINGS I HAVE WANTED TO SAY AGAIN AND AGAIN..YOU SAY THEM ALL SOOOO WELLLLLL....I HAVE STORIES TO ADD TO THIS TO CURL YOUR HAIR....CONGRATULATIONS J. Wyatt! I LOVE IT...REALLY GREAT...THIS WILL BE AS HUGE AS STAR WARS...IS "INTERVIEWS" THE PLACE FOR THE REST OF US TO TELL OUR STORIES TO YOU? I LOVE THE SITE...THIS IS REALLY GREAT...YOUR WORDS ARE RIGHT ON AND SUM IT UP PERFECTLY!!! YOU ARE A GENIUS...THIS IS SOOO NECESSARY...HAVE YOU READ NOLL'S "THE JUNG CULT?" OR SOME OF THE OTHER MAVERICS OF THE FIELD? WELL, I HAVE TO SAY CHEERS!!!...I WILL BE SENDING OUT NOTICES!

<* * *>

Wyatt,

Thanks, but I'm not alone here intending to put the psychs out of business. They (psychologists) have been making mistakes on a regular basis for a good while now without encouragement. That perceived increditable sensitivity is really the underlying realization that they are utter bastards making a buck on the misery of their fellow men. And they need to be propped up so they can postpone having to face the fact.

That is what you are doing and succeeding at, is putting their dirt in front of their faces in the academic terminology which is the only kind which they will personally grace with perceived reality.

I'm glad you exist, Wyatt. We have been trying to invent you and you already exist.

* * *

(This comes from a listserv and addresses Ehrenfels's critique of Psychology's maltreatment of dreams)

Very interesting indeed. I do agree that alot of it has to do with apathy, lazyness and ubiquitous rigidity in professors. I consider my thought processes to be scientific and in a perfect world, logical in nature. I personally am very concerned with the progression of psychology beyond the metaphysic consensus for the application and use the interpretation of dreams. I would like to see more of the metrics for analyzation that Wyatt Ehrenfels has developed. Honestly, I can understand some of the resistance. It really is difficult to measure an interpretation of an event as opposed to the ability to compare your own interpretation against the subjects. The scientific community needs an accepted standardized method to translate a dream instead of interpreting it.......

I'm off to Google to read up on Ehrenfels work!

* * *

(This comes from an unknown source)

Just wanted to mention that what I've read so far seems right on target for me - reminds me of my greulling four years as a psych resident in a very biologically-oriented hospital.

* * *

(This comes from a graduate student at a university in Florida)

A colleague of mine at [UNIVERSITY DELETED] sent me a link to your home page. I have ordered your book because you have spoken to my soul and personal experience in obtaining my graduate training in psychology. As such, I am compelled to send you a note with my personal experiences.

I already have a Masters degree in mental health counseling from [UNIVERSITY DELETED]. I recall the admissions rep telling us if we wanted a psychology degree we should quit now and go in that direction, for the two were different. Not clearly understanding the difference, I stayed, and was trained by exceptional psychologists who appeared to deliver a mixture of theory, technique and compassionate caring for clients.

I learned more in that program than I would learn at my next adventure in psychology. I opted to continue to pursue the elusive 'doctorate' in clinical psychology, naively thinking that clinical meant understanding more about a particular disorder or improving my skills in research or client treatment. I applied for and was admitted to a doctoral program in clinical psychology from a professional school. I was told it was a generalist program with a child track. Great. Perfect. Right? ..Wrong.

They promised a challenging program. In fact, I learned less than I already had learned in my other degree, excepting, of course, psychological assessment, which was not heavily emphasized in the MHC program. It became abundantly clear with each 'merger' that the program was cranking out only those who would meet a specific 'ideal image' which had been crafted by the director of training, who so rigidly held both the students and professors that the professors were only allowed to teach her method and from her guidelines. What??? I thought this was psychology, the ever expanding field of human understanding. Instead, I saw students being cut from the program, one by one, each for a politically correct and psychologically sound explanation, when in reality what was occuring was a complete and utter bias against the physically challenged, culturally different, race or body image. Instead, I witnessed acadmically inferior young, pretty (Kelly or Jennifer?) students pass 'oral comps' while others who were academically superior, and, in my opinion 'targeted', were failed and made to jump through unbelievable hoops, all in the name of academic rigor. What rigor? The reality was that these students were identified for any perceived weakness, and those weaknesses were exploited, often with the result of driving the student from the program. Of course, then the director would use the explanation that some students were not cut out for the field of psychology . Most of the students I knew transferred to other programs, some within the same organization and graduated.

And I was one of those students. I started the program healthy and motivated. I left the program with high blood pressure and began to question whether they were right and maybe I was not cut out for psychology. And then I came back to reality. What? Had I, who had already been admitted to not one but two graduate programs, began to buy into their belief system? So I opted to find a program which embraced differences and itself , while APA accredited, is different from the masses in terms of training programs. What I have found here is liberation, and a program which encourages independent thinking. I feel like the scarecrow who has just been given his brain. Although I have to redo, yet again, much of my training, I am encouraged by the difference in perspective. And I have regained my belief in the field of psychology.

So I wanted to send a note to let you know that even in one school, there may be hope out there for dreamers who believe in human kindness and the quest for knowledge that does not require everyone to fit into the mold. I live in Florida. Disney World used to hire everyone who looked exactly the same; hair, height, weight, color. Now they exemplify diversity, and a walk through the parks is like a walk around the world. Maybe we could learn something from Mickey Mouse.

Your writing is a wake up call to the profession and I hope they listen. I can't wait to get your book.

* * *

(This comes from a psychiatrist respecializing in Psychology)

My name is [NAME DELETED]. I finished my M.D. in [YEAR DELETED] and was going into psychiatry but quit due to the disgusting materialism of the field. I am now looking at instead going into psychology and am running into similar obstacles. I've considered writing a book about my experiences and I'm sure it would have a great deal in common with yours. I see so much of what you see in the mental health field and find it appalling. We have much to discuss. I could write pages but I'd rather save it for our discussion. Perhaps you can offer some insight into my current situation, as well.

(This comes from Australia)

I will definitely get myself a copy of your book, as the synergy of this whole discovery of the website etc is something that has completely energized me to heights I haven't felt for years. I dont think it is an accident. I have been forced to rest as a result of snapping my achilles tendon and as a result decided to finish reading Memories Dreams and Reflections, so I was really amazed to find your excerpts from it at this time, posted on the website. I am nearly through the book. It has been inspirational.

Buddha achieved enlightenment under a tree and it is amazing that people dont realise they dont have to be dressed up in a sarong and wandering around in India to have their eyes opened. You are a living example of that. I am extremely impressed by your tenacity and willingness to take a stand, expecially in a field like yours where you can be so easily vilified by the press and so called professionals...I absolutely love your bit about imagination masturbation...Anyway I just wanted to thank you for inspiring me to continue. I think you have big balls for taking on something like that. I am not a writer, dont have the talents. But I believe very passionately that I have something to say. I am not willing to go through an agent, I am holding out to be led to someone who will read my script and it will hit him so hard he just cant turn away from it. I dont want some person to try to fit me into a mould somewhere. I have never managed to meet anyone that has been as interested in dreams and however you would describe what I believe in so strongly. I really wish you lived down the road. I believe we would have a lot to talk about. Your book is not available locally but I will order it, and look forward to reading it. Good luck with it. If it changes one person, you will have succeeded.

I have been working on my script/book over the last 5 years and never really had time to devote to finishing it. I have collected books along the way and will obviously get yours too. From time to time when a dream comes along that forces me to wake up in the night and record the contents, I have added to it and the story has evolved out of these experiences. If you have the time to read it I would love to send a copy to you. And have your comments. I dont think this is just a coincidence. I believe we are led to meet the people that we are meant to.

I live on 35 acres in the foothills below [LOCALITY DELETED], NSW Australia, although I am originally from South Africa. It has been my vision since being drawn here some years ago to start a dream farm on my property. I have recently started the process of getting plans passed for some cabins on my property. I wanted to invite people that I met that were as passionate about dreams as I am to stay and create a place where hopefully the synergy and focus on dreams resulted in a spiritual location and focus. We are located in the largest extinct volcano crater I believe in the world. It is a place of some significance to the Aboriginal people who lived here. Then I discovered the website. Wow what a relief!

* * *

(This comes from a graduate student at a university in California)

I read your report on the psychologists stalking of you. I thought it hilarious. I mean, what is their problem?! I think you're doing them a favor by limited them to the label criminal. I'm not clinical psychologist, but they've got serious issues. It's not that they're so angry and obsessive, but that they don't know how badly they come off.

I'd appreciate it if you could e-mail me the dates of your TV program. I hope for your sake that none of the faculty will see it air. What will you do if they see it?

Response from firefly:

Thanks for the note of support. Defamation. Stalking. Diversionary tactics deployed in the court of public opinion to convict me on tenor, motive, or venue before any one could read my ideas. These have not been successful strategies by any stretch of the imagination. And if this is the price of my efforts to reform an institution and restore dignity to the phenomenon I love, well, it's more than worth having to contend with the mendacious and malicious dossiers of people doing their best impersonation of Michael Moore and the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

It's not their responsibility to tell me where, when, and what I can and cannot post to the Internet, especially from those whose contribution to the Internet averages 2,000 posts -- nearly all off-topic and malicious. A few of the individuals in question do not even have a stake in Psychology's status quo, but are more than willing to enlist as front line soldiers for Psychology's academic community. I suspect that not being comfortable in their own skin, they develop a heightened sensitivity to people they feel are engaged in excessive self-promotion on the Internet. Their radar picks up every product of inner or introverted life: contemplation, reflection, and what they deem the grandaddy of all self-indulgent phantasmagoria, dreams. So naturally, my very personal and idiosyncratic views on dreams, drew their fire as self-appointed 'kook-ologists.' And to top it all off, these views put me at odds with an institution and caused me to detract from the reputation of a profession in which they bask and on which they depend for sources of guidance, validation, and even identity. And then -- and then -- I promoted these views in an effort to reform the institution. So lo and behold I drew the full trifecta of charges: indicted for 'arrogance,' 'self-promotion,' and 'kookery.' And the self-moniker 'kook-ologist' speaks volumes, because they have appointed themselves to police arrogance, deceit, and kookery on the Internet and to regulate the size of people's egos, not understanding that it takes a very sore ego to see arrogance in passion -- in advocacy -- in selfhood -- in creative or original presentation. If only they could see that many of their targets they intend to cut down to size -- preferably their size -- do not really see the world like they do -- as shades of ego. I have no interest in their games of upmanship, and once I surrendered my freedom to post to Usenet, I found them avariciously stepping up their pursuit thinking they can intimidate me to withdraw from the Internet altogether. Once I released my television broadcast schedule and wrote on my web site of introducing myself to people in physical space, I received a veiled murder threat by someone pretending to travel cross-country toward my home. So even if I decided to withdraw from the Internet, taking my web site off-line, it wouldn't be enough for them. But they realized after driving me from Usenet that they needed to coax me into returning -- stepping up their unprovoked defamation while complaining I hid behind my own walls -- because the best way to detract from my credibility is to have me seen dancing with them in these 'no win'-'no exit strategy' flame wars in the unfortunately named "news groups." Suffice it to say that you resort to this level when you realize you're ineffective in the realm of ideas.

Nevertheless, depicting breaches of net-etiquette by documenting my every move on the Internet is not the way to undermine interest in my ideas. As far as sinking a reform movement or rival politician, it's about as effective as identifying all the spelling errors in your opponent's manifesto. It has been my policy (and will continue to be my policy) not to respond directly to individuals whose quest for personal power and thirst for conquest disqualify them as arbiters of ideas. So I offer the web report on their activities, knowing full well that is takes an average of somewhere between 0 and 1 replies to lay waste to their rants. Kookery. Arrogance. Deceit. Revenge. Agenda. When will they learn that none of these accusations means anything if the ideas themselves cannot be refuted on logical or empirical grounds. If the ideas are sound (or even tenable), spinning a negative perception of my tenor, motive, or venue will be unproductive. It's simply the wrong war. Wrong place. Never a good time. What you get on my web site are educated opinions from a trained social psychologist. Even if it was established that I could not be trusted, that I tipped cows on every dairy farm in Wisconsin, the ideas themselves remain -- and they remain with a self-evidence or self-supporting logic that is untouched by any mud that sticks to the messenger. Views are views. And if people like what I have to say, they have the freedom to run with those ideas in their own minds and in their own lives, and nothing this group says about Wyatt Ehrenfels or his presumed real life identity will deter them from pursuing these ideas.

But I like to comment on this because group stalking fascinates me as a social psychologist. A number of inconsistencies and double talk in their depiction of me suggests they are resorting to lying -- to mangling and manufacturing facts -- to manage a false perception of me. While the juvenile nature of the posts gives the impression of teenage hackers, drug users, and dropouts, the same aliases can on rare occasions present themselves professionally, but even when they do, it is usually to abuse the DSM to depict "Wyatt Ehrenfels" as having some personality disorder. Not only does it give the DSM a bad rap, but also for people to buy into this definition of the disorder, they would have to accept that just about every newspaper columnist and just about every advocate ranging from Martin Luther to Martin Luther King, Jr., would be "narcissists." What is so perplexing, and what you probably don't know, is that while these gangbangers have addressed me for close to a year now (and I assume they're still addressing me although I haven't read anything in 8 weeks), not once has any one of them sought to refute my argument by addressing its intrinsic logic. They seek to dismiss or disqualify it by hanging such unfavorable labels on the messenger: everything from presumptions of arrogance to absurdly meaningless charges of 'kookery.' The term "kook" is foolish, and merely refers to someone with a divergent point of view. The problem is that because they never post anything on topic (everything they post is an ad hominem flame) and because they never addressed my argument, no one knows what it is they are really objecting to, which empowers my readers to assume that they resent me because I have achieved what they want for themselves -- a swashbuckling anti-establishment iconoclasm -- and I did it by expressing views with which they disagree or, in some cases, views they cannot evaluate because they do not have the education or experience. I say this tongue n' cheek of course, but as satanists, skeptics, and anarchists, many of these psych profs, professionals, and non-degree holding supplicants hate the world, which is why they live on Usenet. Anyway, the last time anyone checked, unconventional wisdom is not a DSM diagnostic category. "Wyatt Ehrenfels" stopped posting to Usenet months ago and his web site outlines a high-minded, issue-driven critique in an effort to enhance an institution. Rather than ignoring Ehrenfels or attempting to refute him, they resort to lies and threats, none of which can be confused for educated speculation, motivated misunderstanding, or even subjective judgment, but outright malicious fabrication. And the campaign of lies does not relent. It persists over the months without provocation from me, who eventually resorted to composing a web report for the benefit of his own readers who may have happened across this pestilence. However, having said that, I have learned not to bite the hand that feeds. The pestilence in Usenet has proven beneficial. "Wyatt Ehrenfels" has handled them with professionalism and dignity, all of which serves as credible support for his claims. And people seem to agree when they write something to the effect of "at least it sells books."

As for the program, I wouldn't worry about that. I know you're still a grad student, so it's hard for you to imagine a world that is not completely under their control, but I've left their jurisdiction. What could they possibly do to me?

(This comes from a graduate student. She replied to some advice I offered another graduate student on a psychology graduate student listserv)

I went to the link attached at the bottom of your e-mail. I can't tell you how much I appreciate your site! I had a deafening experience when I applied to enter a scholarship program which motivated me to seek further preparation on all levels. Thank you so much for using your painful experience as a source of strength to us gulliable "up and comers". I was definitely surprised when I detected a note of hostility from someone on the panel. And naively expected a supportive attitude.

Your are the best!

* * *

(This comes from an undergraduate psychology major)

Hi my name is [NAME OMITTED] and i am near graduation as a Psychology major. This site has been a "Godsend" and i just found it today...tis early to really say much...there is a wellspring of information here...but...the reason i found this site is because of the very issues addressed here. All that i read here are things that have be in my mind and not addressed by anyone else in the field. These are things i discuss with otther students, but most seem to just glaze over and say some form of the old cliche about "you can't fight City Hall"...at this point i need to read more here, but thanks for opening these important ideas to the light of day

* * *

(This comes from a graduate student at a university in Massachusetts)

My name is [NAME DELETED], I recently decided to take off from Umass to secure my brain. I feel alot of what you are saying. I have had problems with research in that I feel that people, namely acadamia, does not give the youth of our nation enough room to form their own valid and sound theories within ones own work. we are left to regurgitate old material in the same way everyone else in the class does, and then given an A for effort whereas if you go out on a limb one is given a C for being too vague, hypothetical, or not citing "professionals" who could back up your words. I was wondering which universities or organizations you were affiliated with? I look forward to supporting your book? I hope that this is one of the many works which are taking a bolder step in the direction of finding a more true, genuine, and admirable culture for Americans to be proud of, rather than the capitalistic, twisted, violated, sorry excuse for a democracy that we are "supporting" and standing behind at this time.

* * *

(This comes from an anonymous individual who posted to a stalking listserv a note supportive of Ehrenfels's feature essay, Look Who's Stalking Now, which dissects efforts by a stalking ring, composed of mental health professionals, to menace Wyatt Ehrenfels and others seeking reform of Psychology)

This is an interesting essay and many of the points made are supported (directly or indirectly) by others. For instance, Ehrenfels' points about a small group being able to control knowledge, etc. are backed up in a recent book:

Walters, R., 2003. Deviant knowledge: criminology, politics and policy. Cullompton, Devon: Willan Publishing

I would also say, having researched stalking and cyberstalking for a number of years, that nothing surprises me any more about the activities of stalkers. There has recently been a case of a UK scientist being jailed for life after stalking 200 victims... just because they disagreed with him or annoyed him in other ways. I've also come across several cases of group stalking where victims were placed in very dangerous situations. If these things can happen, anything can!

I won't offer any other comments because I am (indirectly) connected to Ehrenfels' story and could be accused of having a conflict of interest.

* * *

(This comes from a licensed psychologist in New York)

I have not yet gotten to the specifics of your disagreement with psychology, but I would bet that I agree with you entirely.

In 1968, I began what would become a complete reconceptualization of psychological science. The reason for what became a long and arduous journey was my realization, while teaching employee motivation to graduate students in engineering, that no psychologist writing on the subject at that time had any idea what motivation was all about.

The results of my effort are now in book form as [BOOK TITLE OMITTED], which I published in 1990. Should you be interested, I would like nothing more than to send you a copy.

As for the resistance you are experiencing, it is my understanding that this has always been the case, not just in psychology but in every field. And there is good reason for it. If, for example, my particular work is ever accepted, it will mean that virtually all the current books written on psychology will have to be scrapped. That change would, I don't have to tell you, have tremendous ramifications in both the scholastic world and the publishing world. These ramifications would not be positive. So, I would urge you to simply disregard the resistance, which is what I do, and keep moving forward. Not incidentally, there will be kindred spirits out there that you will not hear from until your work is generally accepted.

I would like to be able to reciprocate by reading your book. However, I have two serious eye conditions, one of which is very serious. For this reason, I try to limit my reading to what I can get off the Internet and then enlarge on the screen. This e-mail itself is generated by voice recognition technology. So, any flow of information will necessarily have to be in one direction, except for what in later months you might be able to send me by e-mail.

* * *

(This comes from a business consultant with a Ph.D. in I/O Psychology)

Thanks for your note. Your observations of the unprofessional psychologists is right on. My observation is that too many of them are scared and desperate. The fear is that they will become obsolete. They are being defeated by managed care as well as their competition -- that being social workers, all kinds of counselors, nurses, lawyers, ministers. Another theme I am seeing is a global one. As preface to this -- I several years ago went to a UN conference and a journalist presenter spoke of classification of countries -- that being classified by their major management problems. Third world countries have as major problems production and distribution of goods and services to their populations while other world countries such as the US have as major problems the management of waste and disposal. In the US there is much garbage, excess production and capacity, and certainly no problems with distribution. In third world countries there is starvation and serious production and distribution problems. In the US there is much production of Ph.Ds. for example -- to the degree that it becomes waste because there are few opportunities for them to be productive and thus they are waste. Many Ph.Ds. are very underemployed, scared of becoming unemployed, desperate for promotions. All this makes for a big problem and war.

There is another observation -- what you are doing I think is analogous to what Tom Peters is doing -- see his book title --"Re-Imagine!" There is a revolution going on.

* * *

(This comes from a participant in a psychology discussion forum)

My name is [NAME OMITTED]. I followed your link from [sci.psychology.psychotherapy "news group"] and read every word regarding the cyberstalking. I have been a victim in google groups of cyber stalking, and it was taken to real life (not by a SPP leader either)...I actaully agree with much of what you say. Cyber stalking happens everywhere. I was a victim of it, never having heard of SPP at that time. Your book, website and moderated [Yahoo] group is of great interest to me. In personal life I have been through a ton of professionals and I am no better off now, then I was when I was 11 years old. I am quite reluctant to post in any group for fear of being exposed and shunned. On the other hand, I wanted to let you know, that even though I liked the people in SPP, I also completely agree with what you have to say overall about the psych field. There have been several times when I (the one who is suppose to have problems) have shook my head in amazement after meeting a therapist or shrink for the first time, and read the diagnosis and recommendations after a maximum 45 minute discussion. I am now [AGE OMITTED]. There have been several encounters.

I will probably not feel comfortable speaking openly in your group because everyone sounds so intellectual, and I fear I might not make a shred of sense. But I did want to let you know, that I am very impressed with your work. So much so, that this is the first time, I have shared my actual ISP and screen name with anyone whom I don't really know.

In closing, I just wanted to say thank you for confirming many of the views I have harboured about the field for many years. I studied psychology in University for 2 years, and abandoned it for several reasons. Some of those being things you have mentioned in your book and website. (I'v not ordered the book, read the excerpts) But probably will order the book.

I will continue to read your group, and hope you will share what dangers occur, when therapists and psychiatrists make errors in diagnosis, and rush to diagnose and prescribe. My personal problems with the field are likely minimal compared to what others may have gone through.

* * *

(Wyatt's single post critical about the Gallup Organization's recruitment procedures, well within the scope of the I/O listserv, drew a flurry of posts from participants characterizing Wyatt's post as SPAM and lamenting his burden of their inboxes. Oddly, the number of psychology folk weighing in with congratulatory support for the opposition to Wyatt at least quadrupled the handful of posts Wyatt contributed over the 2 year period). This comes from a doctoral student, specializing in leadership studies at a Northern Virginia university, defending Wyatt on the APA listserv:

I understand your frustration, but I am not sure that is the best way to approach this. I haven't read all of the posts, but from what I've read, I must say...I don't think he has done anything wrong...

In fact, I think he has been respectful to this audience, even when others have been disrespectful towards him.

I can only speak for myself, but this idea of ignoring sounds like something you do in an AOL chatroom. To be frank, it sounds like a passive aggressive tactic aimed at censoring~but this is just my opinion...

It would also send quite a message to subscribers (i.e., others will be less likely to share opinions and ideas that go against the status quo out of fear of being snubbed.)

(Another student, writing from "Downunder," had this to say to add to those fiercely and vacuously dismissive of Wyatt):

Quite the contrary. I find this discussion perhaps a bit verbose at times but certainly more stimulating than the endless listing of which school and what, who and where will one go to attend a good I/O course in the US ... I appreciate that this searching is of great importance to many of those who have joined this list and am happy enough just to pick them up in batches of email and drop them away in cyberspace. Indeed, you may do the same to this list of emails. However, the world of Psychology is fascinating and discussion, even argument, and a continuing supply of information make it far more alive for me.

* * *

Wow! Well said! To be honest, I delete about half the emails I get through this listserve. I was wondering if you could send me a link to your website they keep referring to...I seem to be missing half of the referant posts for this discussion...

I am glad you do have thick skin (and the wit to respond so well), I imagine that many in your shoes would have backed off after that especially condescending post.

Response from firefly:

Thank you. I appreciate the resounding and public show of support. Most of those who support my choice to voice disagreement with this field feel they have to do so backchannel (privately) for reasons I can only imagine amount to pressure from their peers. You and every other student of leadership on this list should recognize the optimistic note in my message. All that energy in my message, and all the vivid language and rhetoric and imagery, that many psychology insiders misattribute to venom or revenge is actually fueled by the glorious good news: that there is no pre-set definition of what it takes to succeed as a scientist and educator. Despite the community's best attempts to put all these patrician norms out there, the body of knowledge we organized from these routines is grossly inadequate in some places and flawed in others. There is still room for pioneering in this field, room for you to develop an individualized style of leadership, if only they'd let you. If only they'd stop interfering with discretionary use of your wits and genuine professional development. Many of your peers want to see me fail because they have grown accustomed (if not attached to) a system that rewards their dependence, like-mindedness, and lack of initiative. They worry that they have nothing to bring to the table and that if they were responsible for creating their own future that they would find themselves unable to compete for a niche in this field. They flourish in an environment in which professionals with no vision of the field and no real sense of themselves surrender their wits and freedoms in exchange for access to external sources of guidance and validation. It's simple. It's streamlined. It's systematic (more accurately, ritualistic). And all they have to do is listen to what other people tell them to do.

* * *

(This comes from a professional cellist)

Hi, I like your website and ideals! We have a problem in Minnesota...looking for help: Twin Cities influential psychologist publishes insults, disseminates discriminatory philosophy:

"Counting on people with passive-aggressive personality disorder is like counting on the weather ---you can't, and they will get you if you try." p. 170

"If interpersonal martyrdom were a virtue, the people in the "anxious" group of personality disorders would be saints." p. 170

"Greta Garbo's famous plea---" I want to be alone"-- may not reflect a serious personality problem on her part, but it is the rallying cry of those with schizoid personality disorder, or it would be if they were likely to rally." p. 81

Gary Fischler actually states that people with "schizophrenia" are "disinterested in promotions" and will actually be damaged if they are promoted. He states that most people with "mental illness" should not work with others because they are "distracting" and "look and act odd". That ALL people with depression should be limited to simple tasks....etc...

Gary Fischler is Minnesota Voc Rehab's chief psychologist, seeing over 800 people a year, and Minneapolis Police dept. chief psychologist. Please help! For more quotes see http://www.minnesotavocrehab.com/fischler.html

We need support outside of Twin Cities. Everyone here seems to know this person, and is unwilling to take a stand against philosophy! If you disagree, may I ask that you please send me an email, and if you will, please also write permission for me to publish it on the website.

* * *

(This comes from a retired academic/professional responding to my post on a listserv)

One of the worst happenings is the institutionalization of a profession. Look at sociology and other fields. The minute they went into academic setting specific to the new found science you lost the Max Weber's of the world. The great thinkers in all of these areas did not train as psychology majors or sociologists. they came from a broad area of study and reading as well as keen skills at observing and analyzing. What schools turn out for the most part are technicians following the most immediate trend. Accrediting bodies do not help either especially when they criticise a professors bibliography because it has refrences more than ten years old. it is so nice being retired.

* * *

(This comes from an adjunct instructor at an independent college in the D.C. Metropolitan Area)

WOW, YEAHHHHHHHHHH....THERE IT IS, THE VERY THINGS I HAVE WANTED TO SAY AGAIN AND AGAIN..YOU SAY THEM ALL SOOOO WELLLLLL....I HAVE STORIES TO ADD TO THIS TO CURL YOUR HAIR....CONGRATULATIONS J. Wyatt! I LOVE IT...REALLY GREAT...THIS WILL BE AS HUGE AS STAR WARS...IS "INTERVIEWS" THE PLACE FOR THE REST OF US TO TELL OUR STORIES TO YOU? I LOVE THE SITE...THIS IS REALLY GREAT...YOUR WORDS ARE RIGHT ON AND SUM IT UP PERFECTLY!!! YOU ARE A GENIUS...THIS IS SOOO NECESSARY...HAVE YOU READ NOLL'S "THE JUNG CULT?" OR SOME OF THE OTHER MAVERICS OF THE FIELD? WELL, I HAVE TO SAY CHEERS!!!...I WILL BE SENDING OUT NOTICES!

<* * *>

Wyatt,

Thanks, but I'm not alone here intending to put the psychs out of business. They (psychologists) have been making mistakes on a regular basis for a good while now without encouragement. That perceived increditable sensitivity is really the underlying realization that they are utter bastards making a buck on the misery of their fellow men. And they need to be propped up so they can postpone having to face the fact.

That is what you are doing and succeeding at, is putting their dirt in front of their faces in the academic terminology which is the only kind which they will personally grace with perceived reality.

I'm glad you exist, Wyatt. We have been trying to invent you and you already exist.

* * *

(This comes from a graduate student in Miami and is directed toward the moderator of an APA "Graduate Student Talk" listserv who instructed Ehrenfels to "refrain from posting" after a post from Ehrenfels about end-of-semester evaluation meetings drew complaints from listserv participants)

I'm not sure I quite understand the complexity of Wyatt's comment or website (and I don't know about the whole assumed name thing), but I agree with Wyatt that there are some conflicts of interest with regard to clinical/research/teaching supervisors all influencing each other's opinion of a graduate student. It didn't really seem offensive for him to say that. I've had some experience with one negative instance in a given situation being exaggerated in an end-of-semester faculty meeting, which also biases future supervisors who may not have interacted with you yet (not to mention biases future evaulation meetings). There are definitely some "group think" processes at work. Are these and other topics that Wyatt brings up, topics that have been covered before? One method that our program has just initiated to deal with some of these issues is an anonymous research supervisor evaluation form where we review our own advisor. I'm not sure how much impact they will have, but our PGSA pushed for them. Ok, thanks.

* * *

(This comes from a New Jersey practitioner)

"J", I'm very sorry for the torment that your lives must be right now. I can relate, having been the target of moralistic, judgmental people who imagined their motive was pure and good: sadism disguised as altruism. You have my prayers.

* * *

(This comes from a research coodinator at St. Luke's Hospital of Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons)

Dr. Ehrenfels,

Bravo! I agree that modern psychologist have too narrow a focus. I am glad that there are psychologist who still think that people also feel as well as think.

In light of the popular view that psychiatrists are better equipped to help those in need because they are medically trained, many psychologists feel the need to prove that they are equally talented. This may explain why psychologists focus more on the biological rather than the psychological aspects of psychopathology. I work for one such psychologist who occasionally lets slip that the volunteers who leave to enter medical school are going to be "real doctors", which serves to dishearten his own fellow.

I am confident that I can navigate the graduate school mine fields, but I wonder how I will continue my research career once I have graduated. Thank you for voicing your opinion; it gives me hope.

* * *

(Of Ehrenfels's report, "Psychologists Party to Dishonest Hiring Practices at Gallup Organization", this Michigan student [scheduled to graduate in 2004] writes...)

How relevant! I just finished Gallup's online personality assessment yesterday and received an email today to schedule a phone interview with them. As this is very shocking and informative, I must ask, has anyone in this group had a positive experience with Gallup?

Thanks!

* * *

(This from Participant 1 on a Google psychotherapy news group)

The field continues to disgrace itself by rejecting valid criticism and its best people. Dr. Ehrenfels has reportedly been kicked off of APA mailing lists just for his views (see http://www.fireflySun.com/16pointspage.html) and for NO VALID reason. The lies and corruption in the psychotherapy field continue.

Open lists are censored and are a fraud. A full-fledged FRAUD as is the field itself.

--------

(This from Participant 2, a Ph.D. psychologist)

As I mentioned several times, JWE is a sock puppet and a fraud.

Its current pretence is michaelvalens2003@yahoo.com. Yes, he officially bought into the dogma of Bradley Jesness and how poasts are being censored.

*snicker*

It admitted it is not above poasting under many nym's, read scok puppets.

It admitted that it is disgruntled as I pointed out to others.

It admitted to administering chaos, destruction, and other tacts in order to disrupt the Psych** fields. Striving to the glorification of its own new order and self importance.

It seems to love the word shadow. OK shadow boxer, so you luv punching shadows, feigning a real fight, pretending.

You truly have to be one desperate character seeing as you draw on the luuser [THIRD PERSON OMITTED] as a supporter. Aligning yourself with it is a tantamount to joining a pool party....cesspool. You have by making him a part of your pool effectively placed yourself as just another turd floating, spinning around in [THIRD PERSON OMITTED]'s beloved cesspool.

LMAO? Yuppers! You either are blinded by your goals or you are just another ignorant asshole with equally ignorant and unsubstantiated thoughts or ideals.

It is obvious that you deal with pretence, dreams. Yes, vain dreams about your import and so-called revolutionary ideas.

Keep on dreamin. You have entered the cesspool of [THIRD PERSON OMITTED]'s making and I am sure it enjoys your company.

--------

(This comes from Participant 3)

He does have a Ph.D. in Social Psychology.

Yes, but there is a qualitative difference. I suppose he is disgruntled. But his points aren't as far out as you might think.

There are politics in graduate programs. I've heard some horror stories, and I've witnessed a couple first hand. His story is one of having views that don't fit well in academia. Dr. E. can actually carry on a decent and even enlightening conversation, and can tolerate disagreement. I have disagreed with him and challenged his assumptions and he was quite civil, even thoughtful and helpful. Never disrespectful. [THIRD PERSON OMITTED]is just an asshole.

[THIRD PERSON OMITTED] and Dr. E. are not the same.

--------

Response from firefly:

I'd like to thank you for your healthy balance of open-mindedness and skepticism. I appreciate blind faith about as much as I appreciate knee-jerk dismissal. Both make me uncomfortable.

I am not wholly familiar with the history of [THIRD PERSON OMITTED]'s relationship with these news groups. Not yet at least. I am working my way through some of the exchanges, but I must admit to feeling just a little "dirty" after reading some of this stuff. It's the same feeling I have before washing my hands in a public restroom.

I reached out to [THIRD PERSON OMITTED] a couple months ago because I saw some rather compelling flashes in the case he laid out against the field's reliance on the DSM. Contrary to what some people think (i.e., that he and I are the same person or two people with the same view), Brad and I are actually working the same case from opposite ends and so I contacted him one day to request that we "talk shop." Those talks culminated in a synopsis I composed of his views on my web site.

I am dismayed by what I am hearing from Brad and others about the censorship of my posts. I do not visit these groups often. I am usually preoccupied with APA association listservs, my own two Yahoo Groups, and college e-mail directories (reaching out to psychology majors with tips on negotiating the hidden odds & obstacles to graduate admission).

It is a simple matter, a stop-gap solution to the problem of J Wyatt Ehrenfels, to exploit my nom de plum and as-yet unreleased book as a trust issue. But my pen name was required to secure the support of the most significant people on my campaign, and once my book is released and I go through mainstream book publicity channels, I will recoup any ground I may have lost due to the assumed name. Not that I have lost much. My web logs record hundreds of visits and thousands of accesses a day on average (Sunday is always a bad day). And those disposed to listen understand that my reasons for assuming a pen name are rooted in my criticisms of the field. (I adopted the name after repeated overtures from a spouse and other supporters fearing reprisals. A subsequent threat of litigation from a university, and behavior not unlike that observable on the psychotherapy news groups, vindicated their fears). I am real, but if I list my affiliations, I give ammunition to those universities for lawsuits, I risk the release of my book, and I send in motion a chain of communique that will flood my inbox with e-mail from old professors. I should just let a competent journalist dig all this truth up one day. Neither I nor my prior affiliations are impossible to track down.

Among the tactics used to encourage others to discredit me is the practice of persuading others that all these critics of psychology are really proxies for one disgruntled person seeking to avenge a collection of bad experiences. I have to admit that when someone speaks on my behalf on a listserv, he or she runs the risk of being treated as my alias. It is then a simple matter to discount 3 critiques as 1 critique and this 1 critique is then questionable on grounds of trust alone (impersonation). Meanwhile listserv participants are working backchannel to petition the moderators to have me or a supporter unsubscribed or filtered. In cases where moderators acquiesce or pander to such tactics, I am not above re-subscribing under an alias (as I am doing now as Michael Valens having received word that I am being censored). While I may have an active day every so often on a listserv, I am usually an observor and seldom post.

As for being disgruntled, yes, I cannot deny the experiences which motivated me to compose and express my critique and to do with my trademark rhetorical pitch. However, to attempt to disqualify a complaint based on a motive would pretty much be tantamount to dismissing every legal case that went to court. Even if I admitted to being angry, my anger cannot account for the logic of my argument, and if you want to defuse my viewpoint, you will have to address my argument on logical grounds. There is no end-run around that.

I do welcome disagreement. It helps me to frame the issues better. It helps me often to find a more efficient voice with which to express my point of view. Disagreement has been a major contributor to the quality of my arguments, helping to shape them even more support.

--------

(This from Participant 2, the Ph.D. psychologist)

As yourself it on occasion presented itself as a Dr without supporting credentials or papers. While there is a certain forensic difference between yourself and [THIRD PERSON OMITTED] there are also some great psychological similarities.

The control the wives have over each of you is hilarious.

So you bought into that too? LOL! LMAO! You are sooooooo perceptive and equally disturbed by the boogie man. tinc. *snicker*

Yes, you are correct in that you have or could be tracked down. Footprints are everywhere, but this socalled pen name crap is just pretentious behavior. You are a sock puppet, you use socks, you try to hide, disguise yourself, and even speak of a book that you are self publishing, a novel, yet you proclaim it as a *truth* LOL, you can't have it both ways. A two volume novel? *snicker* what a whiney person. So you write a book based on your luser lyfe, making excuses for why you didn't make it in the field of psychology and then use that as a basis for your "new thought" and why it is so valuable. Seems all wannabe Ph.D.'s that flunked out, as is the case with BJ seem to have come up with their new conventions, yet draw of works of others to support their ideas.

Now you want to force yourself upon the community and are filled with your own import.

Then do a little research and write papers (published of course) then combine it all into a book that would be the culimination of your *cough* "new thought" Don't try an perpetrate your ideas on newbie's and the unsuspecting. All I see is maybe some gullible people falling into your little private cesspool, believing that you have a doctorate in the field when you don't. I know there are a lot of gullible people out there and one of the greatest recognizers of that had a tremendous circus, but you do a disservice to yourself and others if what you have has merit.

Oh my, poor me, oh what am I gonna do? everybody hates me, nobody likes me.

Well then.....go eat some worms. (Sorry, [THIRD PERSON OMITTED] is already gone.)

Sorry bubba, you are deluded. You must fit into normal conventions, the realm of normality. Wise people do not give in to temper tantrums, or the foot stomping of little spoiled brats. Many totally insane people had great ideas, some with merit, only a fool would attempt to participate.

Sorry, you lie, just like [THIRD PERSON OMITTED]. I saw many of your poasts, most not replied to, yes! Simply ignored. Once or twice someone posted with a disagreement. No discourse followed.

You may be hosting froups on Yahoo, and some may be buying in, but you as [THIRD PERSON OMITTED] greatly exaggerate your numbers. Yep, BS stats. adds real credence to your over inflated ego.

Get a job.

--------

Response from firefly:

First of all, I want to thank all of you who have e-mailed me backchannel with either inquisitive or supportive e-mails concerning the censorship on this list. I too will not bother to contribute to discussion on this news group, as it could only hurt my credibility be seen participating in this forum. I invite you all to continue e-mailing me at my e-mail address and to visit my web site and discussion groups. Finding you was my only reason for being here and there is no reason for me to continue to use this venue in the near future, such as it is.

I do not believe however in the tactic some of you are calling on me to use: the "I won't dignify that with a response tactic." As many times as I need to say it (and this is actually the last), I will say that I do have a doctorate despite what some people claim, that my book is NOT SELF-published, that all this will be born out in time, and that you are not what the individual beneath this post would characterize you.

Thank you. And I look forward to hearing from you in the near future.

* * *

(This comes from a psychology professor at a community college in New York)

Hello J.W.,

I like all your stuff, as far as I can see. I myself am psych instructor (have been for one year only) and am cutting back this year to adjunct--2 classes--and hope to get out soon (probably teach writing) for all the reasons you talk about. I pretty much knew what to expect and was not surprised by this culture of careerism and disinterest in nurturing passion in students on questions re psyche and human nature etc., (in fact we all know school is really place to squash and stunt the good stuff); but I took the full-time gig anyway because I needed the money.

Anyway, I too have a novel, (which deals with some EP themes, actually) that maybe you might like (there's stuff about it under Bio if you go to my webpage). Maybe we can trade books when yours comes out?

Let me know, if you might like to...

Good luck with your book and your mission.

(Follow-up correspondence from this same professor)

I just read over some pieces...The one about Materialism/brain (by you?) and the one called 'Counterfeit Freedom'...They're so well-written and smart...and I feel similarly about these issues, actually...

Honestly, these days I don't feel up to that kind of writing...I feel like I'm taking a mind break...But, it's funny, often when I say that...I'll all of a sudden get very excited about some topic and write endlessly (I wrote 9 pages to [NAME OMITTED] on that [NAME OF FORUM OMITTED] forum re Bailey's female sexuality study)...So, maybe, yes

In a nutshell, it's [my problem with the field is] an epistemic problem...(What's this 'knowledge' I'm teaching them?). And an appearance/reality problem related to the what's-my-purpose (in teaching class) problem...Etc.

This semester, I plan not to use the textbook that I'm mandated to use...I'm just gonna do whatever I want...(which I sort of did last year, anyway, except with the textbook)!!!!!!!!

* * *

(The characteristics of this source is unknown)

This is genious.

* * *

(This is a response to my report VA Psychologists Discriminate against Persons with Disabilities, which I posted to a listserv for New Psychologists. The report is geared largely toward the experiences of a disabled appliant I call NJAA, "Not Just Another Applicant")

Interesting point of view by the author, but a majority of the information and "facts" are based in faulty logic. For example, "Despite having scattered applications nationally across 24 internship institutions, fully twice the average, NJAA managed to procure only 9 interviews." So, I wonder how well NJAA (as she is referred to in the text) knew and understood the sites she was applying. I believe that knowing the intimate details of an internship site is essential to finding a match. So, shot-gunning applications because confidence and practical experience is high usually is not recommended. So, maybe she was not led properly by the program training director at her university. Maybe her lack of knowledge about the sites was apparent in application form and interview form.

I will not defend the "match" policy too far because I do believe that it is flawed, but it does not sound like NJAA protected herself from the downfalls associated with the process. Also, the statement that, "NJAA (who applied to 24 sites) was left with nothing at all, remanded to a clearinghouse in the hopes she would be able to find an internship institution none of the applicants wanted" is far from the truth. Each year there are top tier internship sites that are left without complete matches. So, to state that they are "unwanted" is erroneous and simply false. The accuracy of the match system directly impacts the statement, "Typically, the institutions in the clearinghouse re those that offer an internship that is unfunded and unaccredited by the American Psychological Association." Although some sites meet this criteria and are not funded, there are a number of sites that are APA endorsed and do pay.

Furthermore, what are the reasons that "NJAA ended up uprooting herself and husband to accept an unfunded and unaccredited internship 2800 miles from her residence. Just doesn't seem like just desserts for NJAA, who drained her husband of a job in a difficult economy and her savings account of $6500 to move cross-country for an unfunded internship inconsistent with both her background and her career goals?"

So, it was not logical. It was not economically sound, but she chose to do it anyway? She could have chosen to reapply the next year. Although difficult and emotionally draining, it appears that a sense of protecting self and family would have been better in the long run, rather than to lose a steady income to pay to work for free. She could have lived apart (a large number of interns each year live away from family or partners). So, 2800 miles was the ONLY place that was available? There was not an unfunded, unaccredited site that was closer? A site that doe not pay and offers no APA support USUALLY does not fill in an instant.

So, I guess I got a bit testy this early morning, but I would enjoy hearing other reactions to the page.

Response from firefly:

Sorry, I tried to reply as myself, but the listowner may be blocking me, so I had to re-subscribe to the group to answer your question.

The questions you raise are legitimate and can easily be answered. However, that's all they should be. Questions. Presenting them as evidence of faulty logic is, well, faulty logic. Your points do not reflect on or address the logic of my report, as you claim. Now I will address some of your points or questions

• NJAA limited her applications to 24 that were consistent with her experiences, that cut across a range of geographic locations, and that included traditionally less competitive sites. NJAA actually calculated a ratio for each site (based on prior year's statistics) of number of applicants to number of admits. Her list consisted primarily of sites that were less or moderately competitive.
  

• True. There are top tier sites left without interns. I do not say otherwise. You have to be careful as to how you draw your conclusions about the value of my logic. (As a therapist, you will be evaluating the logic of your clients, especially if you subscribe to today's wildly popular approach to therapy, cognitive-behavioral therapy. And I suspect you may, since you are currently completing your internship at an institution with a behaviorist tradition). As it so happens, NJAA contacted many of these sites during the clearinghouse, including a few to which she had applied and did not match (indicating they had not ranked her AT ALL), and her e-mails went unanswered. One site did interview her during the clearinghouse, and their questions indicated they were very preoccupied with her disability. The site to which she was remaindered (with which she was left) in the clearinghouse was the only site that admitted her. It happened to be unaccredited and inconsistent with both her background and her goals. They made it quite clear they were astonished by her availability and that they were getting a real bargain.
  

• Re-applying the following year was not an option. It is one thing if you suspect that you were turned away because of a lack of credentials. But her credentials were superior. If she was, as the evidence suggests, turned aside because of her disability, no additional credentials in the world would remedy this. And she would lose another year.
  

* * *

(This comes from another young psychologist off the New Psychologist listserv)

I do not have time to read all of this; Does anyone know what is his "better" reorganization of universities and graduate programs in psychology? It is very easy to point out flaws with any type of professional training programs, but is there any substance to his arguments or valid alternatives to the current system?

Response from firefly:

I will not be posting to this list again. It would appear the moderator is blocking every address under which I post. I will leave him to manage and preside over his pristine "community." But I will offer this parting response to a woman who deserves an answer to her question:

It is not easy to point out the flaws, as you state. No one else is doing it. It is not easy to bring unpleasant views or observations to the attention of an entire community of your peers, as evidenced by my having been blocked from posting on this list. Just as it is not easy to come to terms with it, nor is it easy to make sense of it. I try to fathom some rather flummoxing flaws and I do offer some solutions on my web site, but is it too much to expect one person to shoulder the burden of presenting both the problems and the solutions? I suspect it is. However, I will do both, but I have to take this one step at a time. I am pleased you would look to me for solutions. Even if I did not have solutions (there is a partial solutions page on my web site), does that imply that we should ignore the problems?

* * *

(This comes from a neuropsychologist and is addressed to colleagues on the DIV40 Women in Neuropsychology listserv)

The gentleman who runs this website is well known for his disgruntlement against psychology--I believe from his prior posts on his web site his actions began after apparently very bad graduate school experiences. my .02 for today.

Response from firefly:

From your response, are your colleagues supposed to infer that having been disgruntled as a result of bad personal experiences is supposed to detract from the merits of my argument? In my view, my experiences have opened my mind to disagreeable facts about the field to which your mind remains closed. Let's face it -- when you take everything away from someone, including that carrot you dangle in front of them, that person stops seeing the world through the eyes of a mule. He becomes no more or less objective, but sees the field from a different point of view. But if you had actually visited the web site, you would have come across a feature article titled "You Must Defeat Me on Both Fronts." Links to the article are featured on two of the three major entry points to the web site and is even headlined in the HTML scroll above the news page. The article outlines my two-pronged case against the field, admitting to the anecdotal tales of affliction caused by ill-willed psychologists, but also highlights a dispassionate analysis of the sociological properties of the field responsible for denuding its science. But you do not need to read this article to understand the two-pronged case, nor do you have to read any of the articles. All you need to do is survey the web site, even just one page of the web site, to see in my feature titles references to inadequacies in the science of psychology. I wish more of you would take the 30 seconds to do that before snapping to judgment based on a convenient and cavalier assumption about my motives. But I shouldn't be surprised. Threaded throughout my various criticisms is my frustration with the field's ADHD science and services.

* * *

Congratulations on the new and exciting site. I had the chance to check out your section of APA's lobbying in favor of the peer review process. What do you have against the peer review process and why did you come out so strong against it?

Response from firefly:

This was the most difficult and contentious position I've ever declared. My adversaries would love to exploit this position, lifting a soundbite from this statement to hoist on a flagpole. All to depict me as indifferent to the kind of standards that protect our water from contamination. My adversaries would have you believe that what they do is rocket science or brain surgery, but in actuality, the vast majority of talk therapy is NOT even constructed out of any psychological research (i.e., science), nor is it evaluated against research. Why? Because our science isn't there yet. Some would have you believe it is a matter of time, but I think our science is too crude an instrument to yield knowledge in the units of sensitivity, relevance, and usefulness that can inform therapy or even conversational discourse. Why? So-called "standards" like peer review. Why should I submit to the institutional safeguards and standards for a science of human nature when these arbitrary institutional inventions actually sabotage by enslavement the science of human nature?

Whenever we speak of peer review, and for that matter, committees of any kind, we are talking about a trade off. The benefits of peer review (and other institutional norms) reaped by most fields of scientific endeavor do not pay dividends for a science of human nature. In fact, the liabilities of peer review (and again other institutional norms) that normally hamper fields of scientific endeavor are amplified in the human sciences. Take groupthink for example. It is bad enough you have to make adjustments to appeal to the lowest common denominator of committee members. It's a second cousin to censorship, really. But then there are two forces which prompt or pressure Psychology's communities to refine, and by that I mean narrowly define, their standards beyond all usefulness.

• Legitimacy. Psychologists apprehend at various levels that psychology, both as a health delivery system and as a science, has not kept pace. Psychology is young. Psychology is also the only science in which the subject and object of science is the same. Within psychology, there is nothing to curb the proliferation of pet theories not only among pscyhologists but among laypersons with access to the subject material (i.e., themselves). By increasing the apparent potency of the standards, psychologists hope to first project a public impression that they belong among the ranks of doctors and scientists and second to restrict this expertise and authority to a certain class of "professionals."
  

• Competition. Whenever a committee presides over a competitive application process, whether its admission to graduate school, appointment to faculty, or publication, the applicants are encouraged not only to appeal to the lowest common denominator of a committee, but to pander to it better than the other applicants. Over time, submissions to journals acquire a superfluous formal aspect and those applicants willing or able to demonstrate the greatest fidelity to the standards, are rewarded with positions of influence in the field. So committees grow accustomed to an escalating standard and the committees become populated by those who satisfied and exceeded those standards (i.e., who wears the epistemology of the field like a fashion runway model). And if you've ever seen some of those fashion shows, you know that most of this high art never reaches the street. Similarly, the contest itself to become a member of the academic and professional communities has conditioned them to lose touch with human nature.
  

Legitimacy and competition shape the "standards" in much the same way alcohol increases the potency of a medication.

This is out of place in Psychology precisely because Psychology is a young and human science in desperate need of the kind of spark that produces serendipity and discovery. But we've built a flame-retardant culture in which no spark can flame. By this I mean our standards have become so stingy as to deprive researchers of the degrees of freedom they would be allocated even under other sciences. Our standards have created a culture in which we all seek to think convergently rather than independently. This depives us of another type of fidelity that is actually more critical to our success as psychologists: our faithfulness to our own wits and to the raw phenomena under study. Between our wits and this phenomena there must be a direct relationship, but our Psychology have attempted to broker this relationship and further distance the researcher from the phenomenon, all with institutional norms that we are supposed to mistake for true scientific standards. I will spare you here the list of these norms, but suffice it to say that peer review is one of them. Where we are talking about an exploration of the human condition, we need fluid, flexible, broad exploratory research by divergent thinkers. And peer review spells career death to such individuals.

* * *

(This comes from the APA Division 42 Independent Practice listserv in response to Ehrenfels's feature article criticizing the APA's tacit approval of an UC-Berkeley study pathologizing conservatism)

(One opponent writes)

"J Wyatt Ehrenfels was booted from this list last October. He misrepresented his credentials to join. Supposedly an Anton Mason posted the link that Ray quotes above. But there is no Anton Mason listed in the online registry of Div 42 or APA. There *is* an Anton Mason who is listed as a character in a book by J. Wyatt Ehrenfels that is purportedly ready for publication."

(Another opponent writes)

"Dear Listmembers, Due to my error, J. Wyatt Ehrenfels was subscribed to this list last month. It recently was brought to my attention that he's not a member of Division 42 (at least not under the name J. Wyatt Ehrenfels), and thus has been unsubscribed. I sincerely regret any problem this may have caused the list or any individuals on the list. Many thanks to the vigilance of several members of this list who brought this to my attention. ", the following individual writes:

(Yet another opponent writes)

"We are free to diagnose this individual (Ehrenfels). Mine: "odd ball", paranoid, potentially dangerous.

(Opponent number 4, writing on the NEWPSCH listserv writes)

"I don't think this type of message is appropriate for the Newpsych list. I would rather not see postings like this sent to this listserve, although there surely is an audience for this elsewhere."

(Following this and other objections to my presence on the listserv, posts in which my presence on the listserv and use of an assumed name was deemed fraudulent, signs of life were detected on the DIV42 and NEWPSYCH listserv, with the following:)

(Vital sign one)

Why not? These are some alterative perspectives on psychology and the state of the discipline (as well as some underlying assumptions). Where else should said ideas be brought up and discussed if not on a list of new psychologists, post-docs, and graduate students?

Since I have not read the material, I do not know what I think of it. However, I prefer an environment that allows a view to be stated and debated. I once believed that's what universities were supposed to be.

(Vital sign two)

So [NAME OMITTED]:

He must be wrong because he shouldn't have been on our list?

[NAME OMITTED], was I wrong in attempting to "buck the trend," by requesting that you publish an article I wrote regarding my opinions about unionization of psychological associations?

I thought only conservatives dislike change?

(Vital sign three)

To discredit a perspective simply because of its origin is a philosophical problem: the genetic fallacy I believe. This person may or may not have a reasonable perspective, but to just ignore it simply because he (although some have speculated she) is an "'odd ball', paranoid, potentially dangerous" in and of itself is an error.

You cannot berate [NAME OMITTED, NOT EHRENFELS] for not reading a study that says conservatives are stupid, er I mean lack cognitive complexity and basically have a social disease and then not read what Dr. "Ehrenfels" has to say. Some I am sure have, but many of you...

I will say that having read some of the things on 'his' website, I can identify with some of the complaints raised about what he called indoctrination and some faculty basically lacking the testicular fortitude to stand up for you even if they agree with you.

(Vital sign four)

While I have been out of graduate school for well over 30 years, I recall professors literally shredding any student who happened to not agree with their perspective. Interestingly, I recall one graduate student who was thrown out because of his views. Kind of funny to think about the within group pressures to conform among psychologists. Notice the frequency of anti-conservative comments Vs pro-conservative comments on this very LIST SERV. Liberalism is the proscribed orthodoxy of psychologists. As I mentioned previously, the American Psychologist published an article on the liberal bias of the profession several years ago.

Another example of pressure to conform among psychologists is what has happened to the New York State Psychological Association (NYSPA). The politically pro-union executive committee of NYSPA signed an affiliation agreement with a teachers' union, which now costs the association $100,000 per year all without the informed consent of the membership. A recent "random sample" poll of the membership (N<150) out of 3000+ members revealed very little support for the affiliation. Yet on our own NYSPA LIST SERV most members have been most reluctant to speak out publicly against the affiliation. Interestingly there has been considerable private email activity in support of those members asking for a vote of the membership. Members have felt pressured to conform at least in public since some of the rhetoric against those asking for a vote has been fairly nasty.

All this makes me chuckle when I read of the garbage research attempting to scientifically trash conservatives by indicting our psychological integration and slandering President Reagan by comparing him with Adolph Hitler. The idea is to enforce a kind of anti-conservative, pro-liberal orthodoxy by utilizing the imprimatur of what psychologists hold sacred, our skills in conducting solid research. If the research says it's so, it must be!

Any non-psychologist individual understanding how important it is for a jury to be unbiased would and have been quite critical of the lack of bias implied by research that compares Reagan with Hitler. Yet some of our colleagues have gone on and on about why you should read the study before criticizing its' so-called objective basis. If you object to comparing Reagan to Hitler you are unenlightened. Since the study's authors utilized Hitler, must we read "Mein Kempf" to criticize its' hate-filled lack objectivity?

Response from firefly:

If by potentially dangerous to the reputation of psychologists, I would have to agree, although I doubt my argument would have any sting without the assistance of trigger-happy diagnosticians like yourself who engage in such violently recreational use of the DSM. By 'potentially dangerous' you mean 'a danger to myself or others,' a phrase invoked by practitioners before they report a client to the authorities or break confidentiality to contact a client's significant other. I would never make the mistake of publicly hazarding such a global and generalized assessment as you just did (say 'cheese').

* * *

J. Wyatt,

"I would like to personally and professionally thank you for a sojourn that I've anticipated and believe is long overdue in the field and practice of Psychology. It has been a good 20+ years since I've read anything as intriguing and captivating as the articles that I've been perusing through at your website. While reading through your website, I have been reminded of some of my most fondest readings of Thomas Szasz's and his critiques of same; finding myself feeling and experiencing a definite familiarity and subsequent validation to many of my own personal and professional observations. I thank you most deeply for the rigorous stimulation to my heart, mind and soul. It's been very refreshing to know that critiquing the field and practice of Psychology is not dead."

* * *

(This comes from a PhD in Physiology who is responding to my critique of Dennet's op-ed piece "The Bright Stuff" in the New York Times)

Dear Dr. Ehrenfels,

I read your web page at http://www.fireflysun.com/book/brights.php and I agree with you, Dennet is an idiot. I thought that even before learning from you that he is an avowed atheist, because his 'Consciousness Explained' book did not 'explain' consciousness at all.

Now I'm not what you would call a 'religious' person in the slightest, to my mind religion is and has been the cause or at least a strong factor in most of the world's problems. And I might even have been an atheist myself, if it were not for having suffered a near-death experience nearly 30 years ago, during which I met and merged with God. That profound experience has had an amazing influence on my life and I sometimes still find myself learning from it. Briefly, I obtained a Ph.D. in physiology and have evolved over time a theory of consciousness that fits with what I have learned both academically and in that long ago NDE. The results, if you are interested, can be found at [WEB SITE OMITTED], and I'd be interested in your thoughts on it.

Regards,

[NAME OMITTED]

* * *

(This comes from an academic from the Netherlands)

Excellent article about junk science and an excellent website! I mailed it to colleagues sharing our 'approach'.

I would like to contribute if my work gives me some space. I totally agree with you on the causes of junk science. It is sad and frustrating that many mainstream psychologists are a-political, a-historical and lazy when it comes to real thinking instead of outsouring that to statistical programmes. I am afraid that the tendency to commercialise universities will increase this type of psychologists. Psychologists who consider 'scoring articles' as their main goal, not because they really want to contribute to knowledge, but because it helps them to maintain and increase their career. Because of this 'trash scientists' who serve a system which due to its procedures supports un- or crap-knowledge I am ready to stop my academic career as an assistant professor. I am looking for a more critical, society-near working and living environment, an environment which supports and beliefs in its critical thinkers. If you have any idea, just let me know, please.

It seems we have a quite similar experience! About the 'gives me some space': yes, you could interprete it in two ways. In my case both interpretations are true. Need more intellectual (psychological) and phisical space. You speak directly out of my heart when you question the 'body of knowledge' and the culture of academic psychologists. Many times I feel like an alien in my faculty and the members call me 'the enfant terrible'. And you know why: because I tell people very directly what I think about their 'professional behaviour', not very much contributing work and their disability to bring theory (about participation, for example) into practice. In combination with my somewhat excentic nature and my 'labourer language' too much for many mainstream scientists. I have no role-models in two ways: nobody who is openly critical thinking and nobody with my background.

I was a classical drop-out. On age 15 I left school without a decent diploma. Between age 15 and 21 I tried to make a living as farm labourer, waitress, and so on. Many times and years I received welfare. On age 21 I started my study work and organisational psychology. For me it was a chance to get greater controle over my life and income. After receiving my master in psychology, all so called friends from my earlier life were gone. The difference between me, my beliefs and expectations, and them just grow to big. On age 28 I started my ph.d project and about six weeks ago I received my ph.d. Now, I have the time to think about the things I really want to do. I am conveinced that somebody with such a life history and education really can and should contribute to society. Just because of this background I could inspire people with less chances, self-esteem who suffer from the social environment dictated self-fullfilling prophecy of being a 'loser'. Universities do not support such efforts to climb out of the ivory tower, because of their business model.

I have the same suprising experience as you have: I felt many times better in 'real business', had more space to develop unconventional thoughts, felt more appreciated and experienced better Human Resources Management. About feeling appreciated: I 'suffer' my 6th temporary agreement. Having the end of my contract (January 1st ) and the economic and therefore labour market situation worldwide in mind, my mood is not very good, but I am also sure that I will find something more 'suitable'. What really pisses me off (sorry for the language): this constantly pushing and loss of autonomy:

If you want to be sure of your contract you have to:

• Develop, coordinate and teach two courses in three months,

• Participate in at least two international projects,

• Publish at least two international articles a year. Contributions to books and Dutch magazines are not rewarded. Articles in German, French or any other language than English are not welcome.

• Participate in developing new master programm'

• And so on.

Only if you stick to all their expectations you may deserve one day a permanent contract. I am not longer willing to work my self to death with, in many occasions, junk activities.

To sum it up: it seems clear that leaving the university is the only option for a more self-controled life. Funny that both, a bad social-economic situation and the university culture, seem to supress self controle.

Kind regards and I will join your website as much as I can!

* * *

(This comes from the moderator of a Positive Psychology listserv and is directed to me, or should I say, one of my aliases, in response to posts I find poignantly relevant despite the moderator's comments below. Pay close attention to his statement that he removed Wyatt "several times over the years." I had been removed only once.)

Kelly:

Upon viewing all of your emails to this list in the archives I find it interesting that the content of each email includes the URL to Wyatt Ehrenfels website. Being that the content of his website has nothing to do with the mission of this listserv and you are apparently advertising for his website with email you send, we are removing you from this listserv (just as we did with Wyatt several times over the years).

My hope is that you find another more suitable forum for your message.

* * *

(This comes from a clinical psychologist who also serves as the webmaster of a Division of the American Psychological Association)

J,

How dare you. "Vapid Drones?" "Holy War?" Comparing us to Nazis? You sicken me. This mailing list is not a forum for you to attack clinical psychologists any longer, you self-important, ignorant, paranoid, piece of shit. You disgust me and have totally crossed the line. I'm stunned by this post. Although this delusional ranting and compulsive insulting of others on the list has gone too far, this is nothing compared to the blatant disrespect you've shown to the victims of the recent attacks. In the wake of thousands of Americans deaths at the hands of truly evil men calling for a holy war, you would dare to post something like this? THIS IS A LIST ABOUT ISSUES IN CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY AND YOUR RESPONSE TO THE TRAGEDY WAS TO PUBLICIZE INANE MASTURBATORY RESEARCH REGARDING DREAMS WHICH TELL THE FUTURE, AND THEN BITCH LIKE THE SPOILED PIECE OF GARBAGE THAT YOU ARE THAT THE REST OF US DON'T DIG IT. HAVE YOU NO FUCKING EMPATHY, MAN? LEAVE US ALONE ALREADY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You know nothing of the large part of us, but seek to dehumanize, stereotype, and rail against us. For the record you feeble, self obsessed, delusional worm, no one here has spent much energy in disagreement with you. Your persecutory and grandiose delusions lead you to describe yourself as some sort of heroic character, standing against the tyranny of reductionism, but what you haven't noticed, is that no such conflict is going on. How the fuck do you know what we believe or don't believe? The only holy war going on is between your ears in your murky head. You are articulate, for a thought disordered asshole, but you don't know the first thing about debate, or discussion. You unfailingly resort to abuse, diatribe, and cruelty. YOU ARE ENGAGING IN A FORM OF TERRORISM ON THIS LIST, SEEKING TO HURT AND DISTURB ITS MEMBERS ON A DAILY BASIS AND IT MUST END. I AM NOT ALONE IN GETTING REALLY TIRED OF YOU and your attacking others to build yourself up day after day. I am a practitioner of Tendai Mikkyo esoteric Buddhism, and am a psychologist, and I am deeply invested in my spiritual and scientific beliefs and disciplines, but I don't need to use this list to cram my ideas down others throats. Your attacks are not based on your superior position in some holy war, they are some sort of really, really disturbed attempt to prop up your flailing self concept, and to draw still more rejection out of others, in some bizarre form of projective identification. Well, congratulations J., ever more people are struck by just how grotesquely arrogant and foul your personality is. You have insulted the victims of the gulags, the holocaust, and victims of terrorism in your hyperbolic rant, and AS ALWAYS YOU HAVE OPENLY ATTACKED PSYCHOLOGISTS. IF YOU HATE US SO MUCH, GO FUCK OFF AND LEAVE THE MAILING LIST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT!!!!!!!!!!

SO MANY CLINICIANS ARE SO SENSITIVE TO THESE ISSUES AND ARE SO DEDICATED!!!!!!!!

STOP YOUR ATTACKS!!!!!!!!!!!

Response from firefly:

I am pasting below for the general audience a copy of the original post to which the above clinical psychologist is replying. At the time, I believe the author of the above post was distressed by the acknowledgement of 1 or 2 other psychologists on the listserv of kernels of truth in my critique. Every field has a well-developed critical tradition, except Psychology. I will let my readers judge for themselves whether they think the response to my post was warranted and measured.

[NAME OF SUPPORTIVE PARTICIPANT OMITTED]:

Are you still trying to relate to these vapid drones? I think it is high time we realize that at the center of psychology is a "holy war" between the two different forms of spirituality: (1) Methodolatry -- one in which the scientific method (which I advocate as an instrument within the broader discourse and functional approach to understanding) is elevated to the level of supreme principle so that it becomes religion, much like the State assumed religious proportions in Nazi Germany and Communist Soviet Union. (2) A conservative attempt (such as mine) to reclaim a part of the psyche lost within professional culture, e.g. dreams and emotions. Even where emotions are studied, they are not really (for example, as when we become experts on major depressive disorder but fail to adequately probe the emotion of sadness).

Both sides are unshakably devoted to their position because the debate is rooted in an opposition between two fundamental life principles. To them, my pre-theoretical attempt to explore the broad relationship between dreaming and waking experience is considered quixotic, imprecise, undisciplined. To me, their professionalism is the hallmark of psychological unsophistication, ringing hollow, seeking a product or service external to the human nature it pretends to understand (but which it reduces to a synechdoche or caricature).

* * *

(This comes from the President of APA's History Division. This response comes after a post from one of my aliases that I have returned to the listserv under another name after having been involuntarily unsubscribed by the moderator for posting a link to my report on the mistreatment of applicants with disabilities by VA psychologists).

"Thanks for booting him off the listserve. He has a habit of signing himself up, using the lists inappropriately, and being removed. A very slow learner!"

Response from firefly:

This business about using the lists inappropriately -- if you define the appropriate use of listserves as narrowly as you do, we would be lacking for a great deal of substantive discussion. I dare say that when you post such childish remarks that you run the risk of being perceived as an avoidant personality who uses micromanagement tactics to protect her fragile sensibilities. While I can appreciate your need to jealously guard your dissonance-free zone, I recommend for the sake of the broader intellectual quality and freedom of the listserv that you simply delete my message rather than lobby for my removal. To comport yourself in such a manner is inconsistent with the dignity of your office as a President of an APA Division.

My "habit" as you put it, is to post (usually once over a few month period) a link to a cogent report that I carefully composed and edited for a targeted (i.e., relevant) audience. I know there might be people on this list with an interest in the disability report because the report is preceded by a similar report published by a member of the Fuller Theological Seminary faculty. It is one of the only reports of its kind, and this list is hosted by Fuller Theological Seminary.

I am astounded by the knack of psychologists to apply certain terms ritualistically as if to ward off their demons, by which I mean anything with which they disagree. One of these magic incantations is the word 'appropriate.' By referring to something as 'inappropriate,' you condemn it without commenting on its innate characteristics. I think this is unhealthy and I am sure it is anti-intellectual. I think that your continued adult development depends on your strategy not succeeding.

I am not sure to what I owe the displeasure of your comments. Actually this is the second of two comments you posted about me, the first of which called on me to apologize for comments I posted on a History & Theory message board. As Division 24, of which I was once a member, lays claim to the only critical tradition in this browbeaten field (i.e., critics being prominent and respected faculty from Georgetown and Brigham Young), I do not think my critical post was by any stretch of the imagination a misuse of the board, as you put it. But to turn around and instruct the moderator that his listserv has been infiltrated by someone who is routinely booted off other listserves is disingenuous at best. I was removed from only one listserv in the past, rightfully from the DIV42 listserv, as I am not an independent practitioner.

I will not edit myself to tread lightly on your pathologically delicate sensitivities. If everyone who made a different choice with respect to what to say or how to conduct research was booted out of psychology, Psychology would be a barren wasteland. Oh, wait. They are. And it is.

Perhaps you identify with someone in the report who might have practiced the kind of discrimination it exposed. You do have a knack for making people of all personalities feel like the target of extreme prejudice.

all the best,

J. Wyatt Ehrenfels

UPDATE: Listserv Moderator Apologizes to Ehrenfels and Allows Him to Re-subscribe to the listserv

Apparently, the listserv moderator did not see eye to eye with the APA Division President. After having removed Ehrenfels from the group in response to her complaint, he reviewed Ehrenfels's appeal and offered Ehrenfels both an apology and reinstatement in the group. Ehrenfels thanked the moderator for his evenhandedness and openmindedness.

* * *

(This comes from a graduate student replying to my criticism of Daniel Dennett's op-ed piece in the NY Times)

Hi, I'm J. Wyatt Ehrenfels. I know everything there is to know about everything. And when anyone says anything I don't like--or I somehow read something into what they said that I don't like, I whine and whine! You see, I believe in intuition. And therefore I can intuit anyone else's "real" thoughts and feelings--even if I have no proof. I somehow sense it from a cosmic plane; therefore, I'm smarter than they are! And so, as you can see, I'm always right and those big bad mean psychologists who just didn't understand the genius that is me will have to pay for hurting my poor little feelings! Wah, Wah!

Response from firefly:

That was juvenile. No attempt to frame the debate. No attempt to acknowledge or evaluate the argument on its merits. Just pure antipathy. Sure, you'll make an excellent therapist some day. And so explain to me how Dennett escapes your contemptuous tantrum. He is the one attempting to persuade us there is no God or life after death.

* * *

(This comes from a high school senior)

I'm a high school senior who has, as many do, been pondering upon what major was right for me. I felt that psychology is a broad enough major that it allows for many avenues and for the present seems like a reasonable major. However, after reading some of the critique and hearing some of the response from those who have come from the field, I'm beginning the reevaluation of my decisions. Having been a 3 time state champion debater and having heard every possible critique under the sun and defended many of them, I have learned one thing that I use to evaluate critiques. It comes when I realized that you can critique things all you want but without providing a feasible alternative then it is utterly pointless. So my question to you (you being those who support this critique and i guess most importantly the doc) what is the alternative you suggest for a person in my position who graduates in 7 days and is in some of the final stages of deciding on a major in order to begin college? What major do you suggest? And what form of discourse are you suggesting with your critique? If this is a question that has been answered or something that is relatively dumb, please forgive me but like I said I'm just emerging in the academic community.

Response from firefly:

Good question. I actually have an essay on the web site that addresses this, but it would be cold for me to refer you to it, so I'd like to respond personally.

Psychology can be effective in an adjutant role, which is to say as a (1) collection of courses, (2) a minor, or (3) a second major or (4) an interdisciplinary major. Many other majors (e.g. Criminal Justice) have innate psychological implications that are more efficiently and also effectively engaged within that major rather than in psychology, which is rather vacuous with respect to substantive content and issues. Unfortunately, while a course or two in psychology may be useful (e.g., Theories of Personality), some colleges require Introductory Psychology (and in some cases even other courses) as prerequisites. I suspect this insures faculty some regularity with respect to expectations of teaching load, but it also protects them from a critique like my own, which might inspire bright and open-minded individuals like yourself to cannabilize the curriculum by taking this or that course cafeteria-style. (I find it humorous that psychology professors tell students that without Introductory Psychology, students would be lost in the more advanced classes. The prerequisite system does not reflect a true latticework or stepwise gradation).

But whatever you decide, be guided by this principle. You want to put together a package of skills and knowledge that you can sell to employers. But in addition to career preparation, you also want to satisfy your most compelling curiosities and get a good general education. Psychology, in my opinion, neither trains nor educates (or more accurately, it trains undergraduates for graduate school in psychology, which will be beyond reach of most undergraduates anyway given all the competition for limited spots). Now some psychology majors do go on to graduate studies in Public Administration, Criminal Justice, Human Resource Development etcetera, but I would not rely on the undergraduate psychology major as a reliable stepping stone to these objectives.

Feel free to contact me with any additional questions or concerns. I wish you the best of luck with whatever you choose.

* * *

(This comes from a person of unknown background on a psychology listserv)

Im not going to waste my time on you, its quite obvious you are a retard, and thus a champion of the uneducated, of a similar ilk as Howard Stern, all talk no substance, fleeting entertainment, Enjoy your 15 minutes, the clock is ticking.

* * *

(This comes from a person of unknown background on a psychology listserv)

I don't think it's any secret that psych majors have problems; compared with other fields (like engineering). It's an interesting field, and has lots of attractive career opportunities. So it logically going to be over-crowded and suffer from other drawbacks (like requiring education usually beyond a bachelors for most of the good employement etc.).

I think like all areas of life, "if you play the cards.....ya take your chances". In retrospect, things haven't worked out nearly as well for me in pursuing this as what I would have wanted them too. But people when they pursue a career should go where their heart is. They should go with the field that intrigues them. The one that feels natural. For me that was psych. If people don't feel that way about it, they just are doing it because it kinda looks interesting and they don't have any better ideas. By all means, they should get out or at least heed your warnings. But if you are trying to convince the rest of us to question our decisions you ought to save your time and energy. We've already thought long and hard about our lives and our careers.

Response from firefly:

I agree. No one could have told me when I pursued my Bachelor's degree and again when I was an embattled doctoral student to "hang 'em up." I was absolutely determined to see through what I began at age thirteen. After my MA, (I received news I was placed on conduct probation the same week I was congratulated for having successfully defended my master's thesis), I knew that to survive I needed to complete my doctorate in a year and a half but that in the process I also knew I would never find psychology-related post-doctoral employment. Nevertheless, I saw it through simply for the love of my dissertation, "Dreaming & Stress Coping in Cancer Patients" (an unprecented excursion into the mind-body relationship).

So, I understand that my advice would be mitigated by intrinsic factors, and I would have it no other way. But having said that, I still want to help to take the sting (for individuals like yourself) out of the disillusionment, help you to manage your risks.

I learned some things since I finished my PhD. When I joined the private sector here in DC, I learned that private sector employees knew more about psychological phenomena than the denizens of the psychology world. Just this morning I enjoyed a discussion of Analytical Psychology with a 50-year-old technical writer who was astonished to learn this graduate student she met a few days earlier had never even heard of Jung. It would seem this colleague of mine is a Jungian scholar like myself (and yet she's never been a psychology major). Wherever I go, my colleagues seem to understand as I do what is really important and their conceptualization of what a science of psychology should look like is healthy and effective. They are also much brighter. Today as a funnel cloud passed over our office (and we were sequestered in an interior room), we discussed the role of the sino-atrial node within the heart's electrical system and the role of the oceanic belt in global temperature regulation. I distinctly remember that in psychology, my professors had not even heard of tachycardia (I once raised the issue in reference to differential diagnosis vis-a-vis panic disorder). If we were colleagues in a psychology department, I am convinced we could achieve more in a decade than any other department since its inception. And unlike most academics, they are not violent people. (Academics prejudices, professional gatekeeping, and aggressive evaluation procedures are not only undermining the quality of their field [blasting away its most vital parts like a shape-charger explosive device], but they assassinate characterologically, slander socially, and inflict undue emotional burdens.

I feel it is necessary for me to sleep well at night to know I have amply warned anyone who even remotely shares my scholarly motives, product standards, vocational interests, and appetite for intellectual freedom. People often look at my web site and say "well, that's just reactance." But the way I see it, and I am using an economic metaphor here, homogeneity and bureaucratization accounts for greater than 90% of psychology's gross national product. With the amount of misplaced and misguided energy expended on managing a massive framework of superfluous and constraining expectations, (and with the amount of misplaced and misguided energy complying with these constraints), psychology professors and researchers could easily learn enough to crawl out from underneath their reputation as a straw discipline (or alternatively power the entire state of California through a dozen heat waves). We are going absolutely nowhere, albeit very quickly.

(Follow-up Response to Reply from firefly)

Well I was warned plenty and that was back in the mid to late 1980s. The profession in California was already over crowded as far as therapists go (unless you lived in a remote area). I also seem to recall people warning me about the fact workers in mental health have the highest suicide rate than just about any other profession. And of course in grad school they warned us, that treatment times for therapies (as far as what insurance companies would pay) were getting progressively shorter, where in time many psychological problems/diagnoses may be treated purely with drugs. And naturally dimnishing the need for non-psychiatric, mental health workers. Although corporate psychology (a coproration paying for a counselor or psychologist to come in to reduce absences, workplace violence, etc. was starting to take off back then). As well as "coaching" etc.

(This is from a PhD in psychology serving as the moderator of the about.com listserv)

One thing I can say about studying psychology—well there are many things I can say about it, but this always comes to mind when people ask me how it is studying psychology—is that I never had a dull moment doing it. Later I also studied technology and business, but I can’t say the same about them. Psychology is just so much more interesting! And, although I am not doing the traditional and typical psychologist’s work now, I feel that I’ve got so much more from studying psychology than just a job.

That said though, I still see certain merits in Ehrenfels’ criticism of the field.

* * *

(This comes from an academic responding to a supporter of J. Wyatt Ehrenfels, who posted on a listserv a link to Ehrenfels's web page criticizing psychological research featured on CNN.com reporting that "opposites do NOT attract")

The snippet you post below is, quite frankly, analogous in its clarity of reason and argument to an orator gargling peanut butter and as convoluted as the small intestine of a road-kill racoon. Occam's razor, for example, is simplistically misconstrued--applied as the writer would argue it, the earth is indeed flat. The philosophy of science (and epistemology in general) are a bit more complex than this would imply . . . I must suspect that the author's failure in graduate school may have reflected a bit more than the nefarious conspiracy of the scientific Illuminati to stifle his or her innate Jungian insights (as the webpage so pedantically vents in so many places).

My first blush was that the interpretation of the "attraction of equals" premise was overextended, based only on what CNN offered, but that this is consistent with what may well be among the more pervasively tolerated "sins" of our discipline--to wit, speculating well beyond the limits of our data when writing our discussions. An equally tenable hypothesis, for example--and one that would include much more of the historical and peripheral literatures touching the same topics--might well suggest that these patterns of choice evolve socially with certain other features of the zeitgeist and do not at all represent more "hard-wired" rubrics. Indeed, the power of intellect and volition in evolution is nested in the malleability and variability they give a species *outside* its genetic programming.

Response from firefly:

I didn't fail out of graduate school, if that's what you are implying. My web site is clear that I earned a PhD in Social Psychology with a 3.93 GPA and a successful socio-medical dissertation. It should also be clear from my web site, since I make every effort to avoid the kind of motivated misunderstanding and lies that would depict me as nothing but a Jungian with an anti-science agenda that I am an independently-minded empiricist whose early education in psychology may have been conditioned by readings in Jung. But I am not anti-science. I may be more of a pure scientist than anyone in the field who has a stake in mistaking the institutional requirements for true scientific ones. True (or essential science) is a relatively open framework that allows the individual scientist a considerable degree of discretion so that he or she may draw constructively from his or her wits and remain faithful to the demands of his or her subject matter. The institutional requirements, which I have also described elsewhere as "an ever-widening nucleus of superfluous norms," "paradigmatic science," and "Procrustean pork," constrains creativity, limits discretion, alienates the individual scientist from his or her own wits, and undermines an adequate, accurate, and authentic exploration of any phenomenon or issue larger than a breadbox (or the proverbial sandbox). I will not allow anyone to depict me as anti-science when in actuality I am more of a scientist and the vst majority of academics are pseudo-professional clerks, vapid drones, and administrative savants.

"You write, My first blush was that the interpretation of the "attraction of equals" premise was overextended, based only on what CNN offered, but that this is consistent with what may well be among the more pervasively tolerated "sins" of our discipline--to wit, speculating well beyond the limits of our data when writing our discussions. But I know this is something I am NOT comfortable tolerating. The over-extension is political diatribe that does violence to broader research and ultimately to the truth of the matter. I am pleased that I am actually converting a lot of former skeptics and adversaries into supporters based on my critical response to this attraction research. I could only hope that more researchers within the field will come around to me enough to give my position enough of a look so they see what they haven't wanted to see up to now -- that I embody solid scientific reasoning.

"You also write, An equally tenable hypothesis, for example--and one that would include much more of the historical and peripheral literatures touching the same topics--might well suggest that these patterns of choice evolve socially with certain other features of the zeitgeist and do not at all represent more "hard-wired" rubrics." Perhaps. Tenable. Interesting. You'd think SOMEONE would actually look into it. I think it is quite incriminating that no one really has explored this. My whole point is that we don't explore the full range of an issue or phenomenon. We settle into a prevailing bias and then, in the words of one of my supporters, create a psychological school of thought to suit the lab technicians.

"You also write, Indeed, the power of intellect and volition in evolution is nested in the malleability and variability they give a species *outside* its genetic programming. True. So what happened to our volition and malleability and variability as research scientists?

* * *

(This comes from a graduate student responding to Ehrenfels's evaluation of the attraction literature as junk science)

Wyatt,

The way I view this whole issue is simple. I have read your article on this subject as well as the main points emphasized by the CNN article and I have a much greater appreciation for the latter. Also, I believe you have misinterpreted what the article meant by ¡°attraction.¡± The value of any hypothesis is in its implications, that is any other conclusions that can be derived from it; its ability to complete the puzzle. Thus a significant hypothesis allows itself to be tested. The points you made in your article...well, there are no points.

You have a very shortsighted way of analyzing matters. Tell me, exactly why is ¡°love at first sight¡± so important in the whole scheme of things? ¡°Psychodynamic self-regulation¡± you say? Why is this so important? What do we ultimately mean by ¡°important?¡± What exactly is ¡°love at first sight? Through extensive research (that is hard work), and through suitable communication in the scientific language, we may eventually be able to view these subjects with a greater appreciation; in relation to a large, integrated scheme. In contrast to what you may believe, mainstream psychology is delving significantly deep into psychological phenomena; certainly ¡°deeper¡± than you. Your points are very general, superficial, and intangible.

It is realistic to say that mainstream psychology has limitations in approach, nevertheless these are realistic limitations and we are doing the best we can within these limitations; we are certainly not de-emphasizing imagination. ¡°Truth¡± does not come easy. ¡°Truth¡± can only be looked at in relation to other ¡°truths.¡± I am confident in saying that mainstream psychology has adopted a great approach-despite our humbling limitations-in finding these¡°truths.

Response from firefly:

You're right. The way you view it is simple, and truth does not come easy. It is my contention that the Cornell researchers (and their ilk) are taking the easy (paved) road.

1. They need to jettison the word attraction for some other word like relationship stability or longevity, which is not an uninteresting subject in its own right, but it is clearly not what we mean by attraction within the popular culture. The term is intended to create confusion and deceive the public into thinking that opposites do NOT attract. Attraction refers to a process whereby individuals feel drawn to one another. It may be a physical attraction. It may be some intuitive impetus to what feels like a mystical union of sorts. It may also be other things. But when someone like you comes around and questions the importance of these phenomena, you are basically giving me more clout with the public. When I repost this message on my web site, the sense among the general public will be that you are out of touch with human nature -- that you are indifferent to what is important to people about their own life experiences.

2. This research completes no puzzles. Testability is important, yes, and the research I would have designed would have met the dual challenges of being both testable and relevant. I am not as comfortable or cavalier as many in the field about giving up the latter for the former. And my research would not have deceived the public with claims to "opposites NOT attracting." This is an irresponsible conclusion to draw from their data. They need to delimit their conclusions so they do not over-extend the facts. But HAD THEY DONE THAT, CNN.com would never have popularized the results on their news portal. The lie is more sensational than the truth. But what amazes me is how you can convince yourself that it is the Cornell researchers who are doing something noble. The truth, and if I am correct, it is that complimentarity is a complex dynamic involving both similarity and oppositionality, is even more interesting and valuable than the proposition that opposites do NOT attract. More importantly, it is research that would not be driven by a political agenda (i.e., to cleave the public of its lore and perceive psychologists as gods among men). But by being disingenuous, the Cornell researchers hurt both the truth and the public interest -- all for a headline and a line of ink on a CV.

3. Puzzle-piecing. This mentality has its uses. But we should not engineer a field to discourage or punish exploratory research that thinks outside the box (i.e., puzzle). Both my master's thesis and doctoral dissertation had no precedents, but if I designed them to fill some hole or extend someone else's work, I never would have happened upon original and worthwhile facts about cancer and dreaming. A sense of community is important, but when we manage a framework of expectations as stifling and stagnating as the ones that govern research and publication, we compromise the value of individual research, and regardless of how strong the links among research are within an organized body, they cannot compensate for poor quality studies. As many zeros as we choose to multiply, our product is still zero. And while this is a tad of a hyperbole (for sake of illustration), I do believe that our research literature in many areas is "a product of multiple zeros." We need to stop thinking in terms of hypotheses and think in terms of questions. We need to stop thinking in terms of variables and start thinking in terms of phenomena. It is the indigenous methodological lexicon that is partly responsible for superficial excursions into shards of human nature. We have a puzzle precisely because we have shattered perfectly good mirrors. With respect to the attraction literature, our puzzle, once complete, will reveal at best a caricature of human relationships.

4. I suspect that by points, you mean substantive conclusions about attraction. My article does not pretend to have any definitive answers. My article is only meant to liberate true attraction research by calling attention to the biases and flaws within the current literature. The major point is that THIS IS NOT REALLY ATTRACTION RESEARCH. And most of the responses I have received to date say something to the effect of "you're right. This does not mean anything."

5. Why is love at first sight important? Well, it's not the only attraction event, but one of many, and they are all important. People do the damndest things for love at first sight. It is an intoxicating state. It often throws one into a funk where they change the way they view themselves or present themselves to the world. Thus the NATURE of the person in whom one falls head over heels ends up having enormous influence over the course in which self-development will be deflected.

An even more interesting proposition is that the NATURE of the person may not have been selected randomly. In other words, while we may think physical appearance is the impetus to attraction and the personality coincidentally accompanies that appearance, it is quite conceivable that the person fell head over heels in response to something they sensed in that personality (or that physical appearance and personality are part of the same image package). It is quite common for people to fall head over heels for someone of the opposite sex that others do not generally regard as beautiful (or in some cases, that even the person admits to not finding 'objectively beautiful'). But there is a mythological, romantic, or sexual attraction nevertheless, something that tugs and compels and drives the person to think, feel, or behave in uncharacteristic ways. The attraction transforms, in some cases for the better (perhaps compensating for personal biases, deficiencies, and excesses with respect to our value system, range of experiences, and skill set) but in many cases also for the worse (putting us in situations in which we are ill-equipped, maladjusted, or just plain destructive).

You sound like you are too quick to believe that we cannot operationally define 'love at first sight' sufficiently to study it. I believe we can. We just can't be intellectually lazy or existentially timid. Conceptualization and fact collection is hard work too. The data analysis is the easy part. And the way we do research today, we go directly to data, having research subjects provide us with ready-made numbers for our SPSS windows program, so we could pump out our one or two inferential statistics to adjudicate the binary (reject/fail-to-reject) hypothesis. This is lazy and unproductive. Nothing is explored. The only thing it builds is a CV and our careers. The thinking in this field and the scope and depth of fact collection has woefully deteriorated.

So you just keep on telling yourself that what you are doing is true science and noble. I guess the important thing is that YOU believe it. Because I sure don't. It is the research literature that is woefully intangible and superficial.

* * *

(This comes from a person of unknown characteristics)

I am sympathetic to your crusade and am impressed with the level of commitment and integrity implied in taking such a stand. I hope you can find ways to do your research and answer your calling despite the shortcomings of the system, as well as maintaining connections with academic insiders as well. That's been my response to the profound limitations I've also encountered in pursuing a career in psychology.

* * *

(The following is a response to a document I posted on my web site exposing widespread discrimination by VA psychologists against persons with disabilities)

You might contact Dr. Betsy Zaborowski at The National Federation of the Blind in Baltimore MD (410)659-9314 with this information.

Response from firefly:

Thanks for the information. The person featured in my article has been in extensive communication with the NFB over a year ago. The NFB expressed an interest in using the case politically but were not willing to commit any legal resources. A consultation with a prominent Northern Virginia Civil Rights attorney estimated that a 6-figure cost for a lawsuit, given the complex nature of what needed to be established beyond a reasonable doubt (i.e., expert witness testimony).

I was very unhappy with the NFB cause-selection (i.e., allocation of funds and publicity). While the NFB appears interested in suing the producers of the feature film Mr. Magoo and, believe it or not, the technology that alerts visually impaired pedestrians to the status of traffic in crosswalks, they do not appear interested in investing their resources where it would make the most sense and difference.

* * *

(This comes from a graduate student in Miami and is directed toward the moderator of an APA "Graduate Student Talk" listserv who instructed Ehrenfels to "refrain from posting" after a post from Ehrenfels about end-of-semester evaluation meetings drew complaints from listserv participants)

I'm not sure I quite understand the complexity of Wyatt's comment or website (and I don't know about the whole assumed name thing), but I agree with Wyatt that there are some conflicts of interest with regard to clinical/research/teaching supervisors all influencing each other's opinion of a graduate student. It didn't really seem offensive for him to say that. I've had some experience with one negative instance in a given situation being exaggerated in an end-of-semester faculty meeting, which also biases future supervisors who may not have interacted with you yet (not to mention biases future evaulation meetings). There are definitely some "group think" processes at work. Are these and other topics that Wyatt brings up, topics that have been covered before? One method that our program has just initiated to deal with some of these issues is an anonymous research supervisor evaluation form where we review our own advisor. I'm not sure how much impact they will have, but our PGSA pushed for them. Ok, thanks.

* * *

(This comes from a New Jersey practitioner)

"J", I'm very sorry for the torment that your lives must be right now. I can relate, having been the target of moralistic, judgmental people who imagined their motive was pure and good: sadism disguised as altruism. You have my prayers.

* * *

(This comes from a research coodinator at St. Luke's Hospital of Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons)

Dr. Ehrenfels,

Bravo! I agree that modern psychologist have too narrow a focus. I am glad that there are psychologist who still think that people also feel as well as think.

In light of the popular view that psychiatrists are better equipped to help those in need because they are medically trained, many psychologists feel the need to prove that they are equally talented. This may explain why psychologists focus more on the biological rather than the psychological aspects of psychopathology. I work for one such psychologist who occasionally lets slip that the volunteers who leave to enter medical school are going to be "real doctors", which serves to dishearten his own fellow.

I am confident that I can navigate the graduate school mine fields, but I wonder how I will continue my research career once I have graduated. Thank you for voicing your opinion; it gives me hope.

* * *

(Of Ehrenfels's report, "Psychologists Party to Dishonest Hiring Practices at Gallup Organization", this Michigan student [scheduled to graduate in 2004] writes...)

How relevant! I just finished Gallup's online personality assessment yesterday and received an email today to schedule a phone interview with them. As this is very shocking and informative, I must ask, has anyone in this group had a positive experience with Gallup?

Thanks!

* * *

(This from Participant 1 on a Google psychotherapy news group)

The field continues to disgrace itself by rejecting valid criticism and its best people. Dr. Ehrenfels has reportedly been kicked off of APA mailing lists just for his views (see http://www.fireflySun.com/16pointspage.html) and for NO VALID reason. The lies and corruption in the psychotherapy field continue.

Open lists are censored and are a fraud. A full-fledged FRAUD as is the field itself.

--------

(This from Participant 2, a Ph.D. psychologist)

As I mentioned several times, JWE is a sock puppet and a fraud.

Its current pretence is michaelvalens2003@yahoo.com. Yes, he officially bought into the dogma of Bradley Jesness and how poasts are being censored.

*snicker*

It admitted it is not above poasting under many nym's, read scok puppets.

It admitted that it is disgruntled as I pointed out to others.

It admitted to administering chaos, destruction, and other tacts in order to disrupt the Psych** fields. Striving to the glorification of its own new order and self importance.

It seems to love the word shadow. OK shadow boxer, so you luv punching shadows, feigning a real fight, pretending.

You truly have to be one desperate character seeing as you draw on the luuser [THIRD PERSON OMITTED] as a supporter. Aligning yourself with it is a tantamount to joining a pool party....cesspool. You have by making him a part of your pool effectively placed yourself as just another turd floating, spinning around in [THIRD PERSON OMITTED]'s beloved cesspool.

LMAO? Yuppers! You either are blinded by your goals or you are just another ignorant asshole with equally ignorant and unsubstantiated thoughts or ideals.

It is obvious that you deal with pretence, dreams. Yes, vain dreams about your import and so-called revolutionary ideas.

Keep on dreamin. You have entered the cesspool of [THIRD PERSON OMITTED]'s making and I am sure it enjoys your company.

--------

(This comes from Participant 3)

He does have a Ph.D. in Social Psychology.

Yes, but there is a qualitative difference. I suppose he is disgruntled. But his points aren't as far out as you might think.

There are politics in graduate programs. I've heard some horror stories, and I've witnessed a couple first hand. His story is one of having views that don't fit well in academia. Dr. E. can actually carry on a decent and even enlightening conversation, and can tolerate disagreement. I have disagreed with him and challenged his assumptions and he was quite civil, even thoughtful and helpful. Never disrespectful. [THIRD PERSON OMITTED]is just an asshole.

[THIRD PERSON OMITTED] and Dr. E. are not the same.

--------

Response from firefly:

I'd like to thank you for your healthy balance of open-mindedness and skepticism. I appreciate blind faith about as much as I appreciate knee-jerk dismissal. Both make me uncomfortable.

I am not wholly familiar with the history of [THIRD PERSON OMITTED]'s relationship with these news groups. Not yet at least. I am working my way through some of the exchanges, but I must admit to feeling just a little "dirty" after reading some of this stuff. It's the same feeling I have before washing my hands in a public restroom.

I reached out to [THIRD PERSON OMITTED] a couple months ago because I saw some rather compelling flashes in the case he laid out against the field's reliance on the DSM. Contrary to what some people think (i.e., that he and I are the same person or two people with the same view), Brad and I are actually working the same case from opposite ends and so I contacted him one day to request that we "talk shop." Those talks culminated in a synopsis I composed of his views on my web site.

I am dismayed by what I am hearing from Brad and others about the censorship of my posts. I do not visit these groups often. I am usually preoccupied with APA association listservs, my own two Yahoo Groups, and college e-mail directories (reaching out to psychology majors with tips on negotiating the hidden odds & obstacles to graduate admission).

It is a simple matter, a stop-gap solution to the problem of J Wyatt Ehrenfels, to exploit my nom de plum and as-yet unreleased book as a trust issue. But my pen name was required to secure the support of the most significant people on my campaign, and once my book is released and I go through mainstream book publicity channels, I will recoup any ground I may have lost due to the assumed name. Not that I have lost much. My web logs record hundreds of visits and thousands of accesses a day on average (Sunday is always a bad day). And those disposed to listen understand that my reasons for assuming a pen name are rooted in my criticisms of the field. (I adopted the name after repeated overtures from a spouse and other supporters fearing reprisals. A subsequent threat of litigation from a university, and behavior not unlike that observable on the psychotherapy news groups, vindicated their fears). I am real, but if I list my affiliations, I give ammunition to those universities for lawsuits, I risk the release of my book, and I send in motion a chain of communique that will flood my inbox with e-mail from old professors. I should just let a competent journalist dig all this truth up one day. Neither I nor my prior affiliations are impossible to track down.

Among the tactics used to encourage others to discredit me is the practice of persuading others that all these critics of psychology are really proxies for one disgruntled person seeking to avenge a collection of bad experiences. I have to admit that when someone speaks on my behalf on a listserv, he or she runs the risk of being treated as my alias. It is then a simple matter to discount 3 critiques as 1 critique and this 1 critique is then questionable on grounds of trust alone (impersonation). Meanwhile listserv participants are working backchannel to petition the moderators to have me or a supporter unsubscribed or filtered. In cases where moderators acquiesce or pander to such tactics, I am not above re-subscribing under an alias (as I am doing now as Michael Valens having received word that I am being censored). While I may have an active day every so often on a listserv, I am usually an observor and seldom post.

As for being disgruntled, yes, I cannot deny the experiences which motivated me to compose and express my critique and to do with my trademark rhetorical pitch. However, to attempt to disqualify a complaint based on a motive would pretty much be tantamount to dismissing every legal case that went to court. Even if I admitted to being angry, my anger cannot account for the logic of my argument, and if you want to defuse my viewpoint, you will have to address my argument on logical grounds. There is no end-run around that.

I do welcome disagreement. It helps me to frame the issues better. It helps me often to find a more efficient voice with which to express my point of view. Disagreement has been a major contributor to the quality of my arguments, helping to shape them even more support.

--------

(This from Participant 2, the Ph.D. psychologist)

As yourself it on occasion presented itself as a Dr without supporting credentials or papers. While there is a certain forensic difference between yourself and [THIRD PERSON OMITTED] there are also some great psychological similarities.

The control the wives have over each of you is hilarious.

So you bought into that too? LOL! LMAO! You are sooooooo perceptive and equally disturbed by the boogie man. tinc. *snicker*

Yes, you are correct in that you have or could be tracked down. Footprints are everywhere, but this socalled pen name crap is just pretentious behavior. You are a sock puppet, you use socks, you try to hide, disguise yourself, and even speak of a book that you are self publishing, a novel, yet you proclaim it as a *truth* LOL, you can't have it both ways. A two volume novel? *snicker* what a whiney person. So you write a book based on your luser lyfe, making excuses for why you didn't make it in the field of psychology and then use that as a basis for your "new thought" and why it is so valuable. Seems all wannabe Ph.D.'s that flunked out, as is the case with BJ seem to have come up with their new conventions, yet draw of works of others to support their ideas.

Now you want to force yourself upon the community and are filled with your own import.

Then do a little research and write papers (published of course) then combine it all into a book that would be the culimination of your *cough* "new thought" Don't try an perpetrate your ideas on newbie's and the unsuspecting. All I see is maybe some gullible people falling into your little private cesspool, believing that you have a doctorate in the field when you don't. I know there are a lot of gullible people out there and one of the greatest recognizers of that had a tremendous circus, but you do a disservice to yourself and others if what you have has merit.

Oh my, poor me, oh what am I gonna do? everybody hates me, nobody likes me.

Well then.....go eat some worms. (Sorry, [THIRD PERSON OMITTED] is already gone.)

Sorry bubba, you are deluded. You must fit into normal conventions, the realm of normality. Wise people do not give in to temper tantrums, or the foot stomping of little spoiled brats. Many totally insane people had great ideas, some with merit, only a fool would attempt to participate.

Sorry, you lie, just like [THIRD PERSON OMITTED]. I saw many of your poasts, most not replied to, yes! Simply ignored. Once or twice someone posted with a disagreement. No discourse followed.

You may be hosting froups on Yahoo, and some may be buying in, but you as [THIRD PERSON OMITTED] greatly exaggerate your numbers. Yep, BS stats. adds real credence to your over inflated ego.

Get a job.

--------

Response from firefly:

First of all, I want to thank all of you who have e-mailed me backchannel with either inquisitive or supportive e-mails concerning the censorship on this list. I too will not bother to contribute to discussion on this news group, as it could only hurt my credibility be seen participating in this forum. I invite you all to continue e-mailing me at my e-mail address and to visit my web site and discussion groups. Finding you was my only reason for being here and there is no reason for me to continue to use this venue in the near future, such as it is.

I do not believe however in the tactic some of you are calling on me to use: the "I won't dignify that with a response tactic." As many times as I need to say it (and this is actually the last), I will say that I do have a doctorate despite what some people claim, that my book is NOT SELF-published, that all this will be born out in time, and that you are not what the individual beneath this post would characterize you.

Thank you. And I look forward to hearing from you in the near future.

* * *

(This comes from a psychology professor at a community college in New York)

Hello J.W.,

I like all your stuff, as far as I can see. I myself am psych instructor (have been for one year only) and am cutting back this year to adjunct--2 classes--and hope to get out soon (probably teach writing) for all the reasons you talk about. I pretty much knew what to expect and was not surprised by this culture of careerism and disinterest in nurturing passion in students on questions re psyche and human nature etc., (in fact we all know school is really place to squash and stunt the good stuff); but I took the full-time gig anyway because I needed the money.

Anyway, I too have a novel, (which deals with some EP themes, actually) that maybe you might like (there's stuff about it under Bio if you go to my webpage). Maybe we can trade books when yours comes out?

Let me know, if you might like to...

Good luck with your book and your mission.

(Follow-up correspondence from this same professor)

I just read over some pieces...The one about Materialism/brain (by you?) and the one called 'Counterfeit Freedom'...They're so well-written and smart...and I feel similarly about these issues, actually...

Honestly, these days I don't feel up to that kind of writing...I feel like I'm taking a mind break...But, it's funny, often when I say that...I'll all of a sudden get very excited about some topic and write endlessly (I wrote 9 pages to [NAME OMITTED] on that [NAME OF FORUM OMITTED] forum re Bailey's female sexuality study)...So, maybe, yes

In a nutshell, it's [my problem with the field is] an epistemic problem...(What's this 'knowledge' I'm teaching them?). And an appearance/reality problem related to the what's-my-purpose (in teaching class) problem...Etc.

This semester, I plan not to use the textbook that I'm mandated to use...I'm just gonna do whatever I want...(which I sort of did last year, anyway, except with the textbook)!!!!!!!!

* * *

(The characteristics of this source is unknown)

This is genious.

* * *

(This is a response to my report VA Psychologists Discriminate against Persons with Disabilities, which I posted to a listserv for New Psychologists. The report is geared largely toward the experiences of a disabled appliant I call NJAA, "Not Just Another Applicant")

Interesting point of view by the author, but a majority of the information and "facts" are based in faulty logic. For example, "Despite having scattered applications nationally across 24 internship institutions, fully twice the average, NJAA managed to procure only 9 interviews." So, I wonder how well NJAA (as she is referred to in the text) knew and understood the sites she was applying. I believe that knowing the intimate details of an internship site is essential to finding a match. So, shot-gunning applications because confidence and practical experience is high usually is not recommended. So, maybe she was not led properly by the program training director at her university. Maybe her lack of knowledge about the sites was apparent in application form and interview form.

I will not defend the "match" policy too far because I do believe that it is flawed, but it does not sound like NJAA protected herself from the downfalls associated with the process. Also, the statement that, "NJAA (who applied to 24 sites) was left with nothing at all, remanded to a clearinghouse in the hopes she would be able to find an internship institution none of the applicants wanted" is far from the truth. Each year there are top tier internship sites that are left without complete matches. So, to state that they are "unwanted" is erroneous and simply false. The accuracy of the match system directly impacts the statement, "Typically, the institutions in the clearinghouse re those that offer an internship that is unfunded and unaccredited by the American Psychological Association." Although some sites meet this criteria and are not funded, there are a number of sites that are APA endorsed and do pay.

Furthermore, what are the reasons that "NJAA ended up uprooting herself and husband to accept an unfunded and unaccredited internship 2800 miles from her residence. Just doesn't seem like just desserts for NJAA, who drained her husband of a job in a difficult economy and her savings account of $6500 to move cross-country for an unfunded internship inconsistent with both her background and her career goals?"

So, it was not logical. It was not economically sound, but she chose to do it anyway? She could have chosen to reapply the next year. Although difficult and emotionally draining, it appears that a sense of protecting self and family would have been better in the long run, rather than to lose a steady income to pay to work for free. She could have lived apart (a large number of interns each year live away from family or partners). So, 2800 miles was the ONLY place that was available? There was not an unfunded, unaccredited site that was closer? A site that doe not pay and offers no APA support USUALLY does not fill in an instant.

So, I guess I got a bit testy this early morning, but I would enjoy hearing other reactions to the page.

Response from firefly:

Sorry, I tried to reply as myself, but the listowner may be blocking me, so I had to re-subscribe to the group to answer your question.

The questions you raise are legitimate and can easily be answered. However, that's all they should be. Questions. Presenting them as evidence of faulty logic is, well, faulty logic. Your points do not reflect on or address the logic of my report, as you claim. Now I will address some of your points or questions

• NJAA limited her applications to 24 that were consistent with her experiences, that cut across a range of geographic locations, and that included traditionally less competitive sites. NJAA actually calculated a ratio for each site (based on prior year's statistics) of number of applicants to number of admits. Her list consisted primarily of sites that were less or moderately competitive.
  

• True. There are top tier sites left without interns. I do not say otherwise. You have to be careful as to how you draw your conclusions about the value of my logic. (As a therapist, you will be evaluating the logic of your clients, especially if you subscribe to today's wildly popular approach to therapy, cognitive-behavioral therapy. And I suspect you may, since you are currently completing your internship at an institution with a behaviorist tradition). As it so happens, NJAA contacted many of these sites during the clearinghouse, including a few to which she had applied and did not match (indicating they had not ranked her AT ALL), and her e-mails went unanswered. One site did interview her during the clearinghouse, and their questions indicated they were very preoccupied with her disability. The site to which she was remaindered (with which she was left) in the clearinghouse was the only site that admitted her. It happened to be unaccredited and inconsistent with both her background and her goals. They made it quite clear they were astonished by her availability and that they were getting a real bargain.
  

• Re-applying the following year was not an option. It is one thing if you suspect that you were turned away because of a lack of credentials. But her credentials were superior. If she was, as the evidence suggests, turned aside because of her disability, no additional credentials in the world would remedy this. And she would lose another year.
  

* * *

(This comes from another young psychologist off the New Psychologist listserv)

I do not have time to read all of this; Does anyone know what is his "better" reorganization of universities and graduate programs in psychology? It is very easy to point out flaws with any type of professional training programs, but is there any substance to his arguments or valid alternatives to the current system?

Response from firefly:

I will not be posting to this list again. It would appear the moderator is blocking every address under which I post. I will leave him to manage and preside over his pristine "community." But I will offer this parting response to a woman who deserves an answer to her question:

It is not easy to point out the flaws, as you state. No one else is doing it. It is not easy to bring unpleasant views or observations to the attention of an entire community of your peers, as evidenced by my having been blocked from posting on this list. Just as it is not easy to come to terms with it, nor is it easy to make sense of it. I try to fathom some rather flummoxing flaws and I do offer some solutions on my web site, but is it too much to expect one person to shoulder the burden of presenting both the problems and the solutions? I suspect it is. However, I will do both, but I have to take this one step at a time. I am pleased you would look to me for solutions. Even if I did not have solutions (there is a partial solutions page on my web site), does that imply that we should ignore the problems?

* * *

(This comes from a neuropsychologist and is addressed to colleagues on the DIV40 Women in Neuropsychology listserv)

The gentleman who runs this website is well known for his disgruntlement against psychology--I believe from his prior posts on his web site his actions began after apparently very bad graduate school experiences. my .02 for today.

Response from firefly:

From your response, are your colleagues supposed to infer that having been disgruntled as a result of bad personal experiences is supposed to detract from the merits of my argument? In my view, my experiences have opened my mind to disagreeable facts about the field to which your mind remains closed. Let's face it -- when you take everything away from someone, including that carrot you dangle in front of them, that person stops seeing the world through the eyes of a mule. He becomes no more or less objective, but sees the field from a different point of view. But if you had actually visited the web site, you would have come across a feature article titled "You Must Defeat Me on Both Fronts." Links to the article are featured on two of the three major entry points to the web site and is even headlined in the HTML scroll above the news page. The article outlines my two-pronged case against the field, admitting to the anecdotal tales of affliction caused by ill-willed psychologists, but also highlights a dispassionate analysis of the sociological properties of the field responsible for denuding its science. But you do not need to read this article to understand the two-pronged case, nor do you have to read any of the articles. All you need to do is survey the web site, even just one page of the web site, to see in my feature titles references to inadequacies in the science of psychology. I wish more of you would take the 30 seconds to do that before snapping to judgment based on a convenient and cavalier assumption about my motives. But I shouldn't be surprised. Threaded throughout my various criticisms is my frustration with the field's ADHD science and services.

* * *

Congratulations on the new and exciting site. I had the chance to check out your section of APA's lobbying in favor of the peer review process. What do you have against the peer review process and why did you come out so strong against it?

Response from firefly:

This was the most difficult and contentious position I've ever declared. My adversaries would love to exploit this position, lifting a soundbite from this statement to hoist on a flagpole. All to depict me as indifferent to the kind of standards that protect our water from contamination. My adversaries would have you believe that what they do is rocket science or brain surgery, but in actuality, the vast majority of talk therapy is NOT even constructed out of any psychological research (i.e., science), nor is it evaluated against research. Why? Because our science isn't there yet. Some would have you believe it is a matter of time, but I think our science is too crude an instrument to yield knowledge in the units of sensitivity, relevance, and usefulness that can inform therapy or even conversational discourse. Why? So-called "standards" like peer review. Why should I submit to the institutional safeguards and standards for a science of human nature when these arbitrary institutional inventions actually sabotage by enslavement the science of human nature?

Whenever we speak of peer review, and for that matter, committees of any kind, we are talking about a trade off. The benefits of peer review (and other institutional norms) reaped by most fields of scientific endeavor do not pay dividends for a science of human nature. In fact, the liabilities of peer review (and again other institutional norms) that normally hamper fields of scientific endeavor are amplified in the human sciences. Take groupthink for example. It is bad enough you have to make adjustments to appeal to the lowest common denominator of committee members. It's a second cousin to censorship, really. But then there are two forces which prompt or pressure Psychology's communities to refine, and by that I mean narrowly define, their standards beyond all usefulness.

• Legitimacy. Psychologists apprehend at various levels that psychology, both as a health delivery system and as a science, has not kept pace. Psychology is young. Psychology is also the only science in which the subject and object of science is the same. Within psychology, there is nothing to curb the proliferation of pet theories not only among pscyhologists but among laypersons with access to the subject material (i.e., themselves). By increasing the apparent potency of the standards, psychologists hope to first project a public impression that they belong among the ranks of doctors and scientists and second to restrict this expertise and authority to a certain class of "professionals."
  

• Competition. Whenever a committee presides over a competitive application process, whether its admission to graduate school, appointment to faculty, or publication, the applicants are encouraged not only to appeal to the lowest common denominator of a committee, but to pander to it better than the other applicants. Over time, submissions to journals acquire a superfluous formal aspect and those applicants willing or able to demonstrate the greatest fidelity to the standards, are rewarded with positions of influence in the field. So committees grow accustomed to an escalating standard and the committees become populated by those who satisfied and exceeded those standards (i.e., who wears the epistemology of the field like a fashion runway model). And if you've ever seen some of those fashion shows, you know that most of this high art never reaches the street. Similarly, the contest itself to become a member of the academic and professional communities has conditioned them to lose touch with human nature.
  

Legitimacy and competition shape the "standards" in much the same way alcohol increases the potency of a medication.

This is out of place in Psychology precisely because Psychology is a young and human science in desperate need of the kind of spark that produces serendipity and discovery. But we've built a flame-retardant culture in which no spark can flame. By this I mean our standards have become so stingy as to deprive researchers of the degrees of freedom they would be allocated even under other sciences. Our standards have created a culture in which we all seek to think convergently rather than independently. This depives us of another type of fidelity that is actually more critical to our success as psychologists: our faithfulness to our own wits and to the raw phenomena under study. Between our wits and this phenomena there must be a direct relationship, but our Psychology have attempted to broker this relationship and further distance the researcher from the phenomenon, all with institutional norms that we are supposed to mistake for true scientific standards. I will spare you here the list of these norms, but suffice it to say that peer review is one of them. Where we are talking about an exploration of the human condition, we need fluid, flexible, broad exploratory research by divergent thinkers. And peer review spells career death to such individuals.

* * *

(This comes from the APA Division 42 Independent Practice listserv in response to Ehrenfels's feature article criticizing the APA's tacit approval of an UC-Berkeley study pathologizing conservatism)

(One opponent writes)

"J Wyatt Ehrenfels was booted from this list last October. He misrepresented his credentials to join. Supposedly an Anton Mason posted the link that Ray quotes above. But there is no Anton Mason listed in the online registry of Div 42 or APA. There *is* an Anton Mason who is listed as a character in a book by J. Wyatt Ehrenfels that is purportedly ready for publication."

(Another opponent writes)

"Dear Listmembers, Due to my error, J. Wyatt Ehrenfels was subscribed to this list last month. It recently was brought to my attention that he's not a member of Division 42 (at least not under the name J. Wyatt Ehrenfels), and thus has been unsubscribed. I sincerely regret any problem this may have caused the list or any individuals on the list. Many thanks to the vigilance of several members of this list who brought this to my attention. ", the following individual writes:

(Yet another opponent writes)

"We are free to diagnose this individual (Ehrenfels). Mine: "odd ball", paranoid, potentially dangerous.

(Opponent number 4, writing on the NEWPSCH listserv writes)

"I don't think this type of message is appropriate for the Newpsych list. I would rather not see postings like this sent to this listserve, although there surely is an audience for this elsewhere."

(Following this and other objections to my presence on the listserv, posts in which my presence on the listserv and use of an assumed name was deemed fraudulent, signs of life were detected on the DIV42 and NEWPSYCH listserv, with the following:)

(Vital sign one)

Why not? These are some alterative perspectives on psychology and the state of the discipline (as well as some underlying assumptions). Where else should said ideas be brought up and discussed if not on a list of new psychologists, post-docs, and graduate students?

Since I have not read the material, I do not know what I think of it. However, I prefer an environment that allows a view to be stated and debated. I once believed that's what universities were supposed to be.

(Vital sign two)

So [NAME OMITTED]:

He must be wrong because he shouldn't have been on our list?

[NAME OMITTED], was I wrong in attempting to "buck the trend," by requesting that you publish an article I wrote regarding my opinions about unionization of psychological associations?

I thought only conservatives dislike change?

(Vital sign three)

To discredit a perspective simply because of its origin is a philosophical problem: the genetic fallacy I believe. This person may or may not have a reasonable perspective, but to just ignore it simply because he (although some have speculated she) is an "'odd ball', paranoid, potentially dangerous" in and of itself is an error.

You cannot berate [NAME OMITTED, NOT EHRENFELS] for not reading a study that says conservatives are stupid, er I mean lack cognitive complexity and basically have a social disease and then not read what Dr. "Ehrenfels" has to say. Some I am sure have, but many of you...

I will say that having read some of the things on 'his' website, I can identify with some of the complaints raised about what he called indoctrination and some faculty basically lacking the testicular fortitude to stand up for you even if they agree with you.

(Vital sign four)

While I have been out of graduate school for well over 30 years, I recall professors literally shredding any student who happened to not agree with their perspective. Interestingly, I recall one graduate student who was thrown out because of his views. Kind of funny to think about the within group pressures to conform among psychologists. Notice the frequency of anti-conservative comments Vs pro-conservative comments on this very LIST SERV. Liberalism is the proscribed orthodoxy of psychologists. As I mentioned previously, the American Psychologist published an article on the liberal bias of the profession several years ago.

Another example of pressure to conform among psychologists is what has happened to the New York State Psychological Association (NYSPA). The politically pro-union executive committee of NYSPA signed an affiliation agreement with a teachers' union, which now costs the association $100,000 per year all without the informed consent of the membership. A recent "random sample" poll of the membership (N<150) out of 3000+ members revealed very little support for the affiliation. Yet on our own NYSPA LIST SERV most members have been most reluctant to speak out publicly against the affiliation. Interestingly there has been considerable private email activity in support of those members asking for a vote of the membership. Members have felt pressured to conform at least in public since some of the rhetoric against those asking for a vote has been fairly nasty.

All this makes me chuckle when I read of the garbage research attempting to scientifically trash conservatives by indicting our psychological integration and slandering President Reagan by comparing him with Adolph Hitler. The idea is to enforce a kind of anti-conservative, pro-liberal orthodoxy by utilizing the imprimatur of what psychologists hold sacred, our skills in conducting solid research. If the research says it's so, it must be!

Any non-psychologist individual understanding how important it is for a jury to be unbiased would and have been quite critical of the lack of bias implied by research that compares Reagan with Hitler. Yet some of our colleagues have gone on and on about why you should read the study before criticizing its' so-called objective basis. If you object to comparing Reagan to Hitler you are unenlightened. Since the study's authors utilized Hitler, must we read "Mein Kempf" to criticize its' hate-filled lack objectivity?

Response from firefly:

If by potentially dangerous to the reputation of psychologists, I would have to agree, although I doubt my argument would have any sting without the assistance of trigger-happy diagnosticians like yourself who I submit are more dangerous than people like myself who are disgruntled or simply different. But I suspect that by 'potentially dangerous' you mean 'a danger to myself or others,' a phrase invoked by practitioners before they report a client to the authorities or break confidentiality to contact a client's significant other. So which is it? Odd ball? Or potentially dangerous? Because potentially dangerous odd ball sounds like an ill-informed diagnosis to me. On what, praytell, are you basing your characterization of 'potentially dangerous.' I suppose I am 'potentially dangerous' in the same vein as anyone recently laid off or bucked for promotion, not knowing any of them as individuals, can be said to be 'potentially dangerous.' Not that I would make the mistake of publicly hazarding such a global and generalized assessment as you just did (say 'cheese').

* * *

J. Wyatt,

"I would like to personally and professionally thank you for a sojourn that I've anticipated and believe is long overdue in the field and practice of Psychology. It has been a good 20+ years since I've read anything as intriguing and captivating as the articles that I've been perusing through at your website. While reading through your website, I have been reminded of some of my most fondest readings of Thomas Szasz's and his critiques of same; finding myself feeling and experiencing a definite familiarity and subsequent validation to many of my own personal and professional observations. I thank you most deeply for the rigorous stimulation to my heart, mind and soul. It's been very refreshing to know that critiquing the field and practice of Psychology is not dead."

* * *

(This comes from a PhD in Physiology who is responding to my critique of Dennet's op-ed piece "The Bright Stuff" in the New York Times)

Dear Dr. Ehrenfels,

I read your web page at http://www.fireflysun.com/book/brights.php and I agree with you, Dennet is an idiot. I thought that even before learning from you that he is an avowed atheist, because his 'Consciousness Explained' book did not 'explain' consciousness at all.

Now I'm not what you would call a 'religious' person in the slightest, to my mind religion is and has been the cause or at least a strong factor in most of the world's problems. And I might even have been an atheist myself, if it were not for having suffered a near-death experience nearly 30 years ago, during which I met and merged with God. That profound experience has had an amazing influence on my life and I sometimes still find myself learning from it. Briefly, I obtained a Ph.D. in physiology and have evolved over time a theory of consciousness that fits with what I have learned both academically and in that long ago NDE. The results, if you are interested, can be found at [WEB SITE OMITTED], and I'd be interested in your thoughts on it.

Regards,

[NAME OMITTED]

* * *

(This comes from an academic from the Netherlands)

Excellent article about junk science and an excellent website! I mailed it to colleagues sharing our 'approach'.

I would like to contribute if my work gives me some space. I totally agree with you on the causes of junk science. It is sad and frustrating that many mainstream psychologists are a-political, a-historical and lazy when it comes to real thinking instead of outsouring that to statistical programmes. I am afraid that the tendency to commercialise universities will increase this type of psychologists. Psychologists who consider 'scoring articles' as their main goal, not because they really want to contribute to knowledge, but because it helps them to maintain and increase their career. Because of this 'trash scientists' who serve a system which due to its procedures supports un- or crap-knowledge I am ready to stop my academic career as an assistant professor. I am looking for a more critical, society-near working and living environment, an environment which supports and beliefs in its critical thinkers. If you have any idea, just let me know, please.

It seems we have a quite similar experience! About the 'gives me some space': yes, you could interprete it in two ways. In my case both interpretations are true. Need more intellectual (psychological) and phisical space. You speak directly out of my heart when you question the 'body of knowledge' and the culture of academic psychologists. Many times I feel like an alien in my faculty and the members call me 'the enfant terrible'. And you know why: because I tell people very directly what I think about their 'professional behaviour', not very much contributing work and their disability to bring theory (about participation, for example) into practice. In combination with my somewhat excentic nature and my 'labourer language' too much for many mainstream scientists. I have no role-models in two ways: nobody who is openly critical thinking and nobody with my background.

I was a classical drop-out. On age 15 I left school without a decent diploma. Between age 15 and 21 I tried to make a living as farm labourer, waitress, and so on. Many times and years I received welfare. On age 21 I started my study work and organisational psychology. For me it was a chance to get greater controle over my life and income. After receiving my master in psychology, all so called friends from my earlier life were gone. The difference between me, my beliefs and expectations, and them just grow to big. On age 28 I started my ph.d project and about six weeks ago I received my ph.d. Now, I have the time to think about the things I really want to do. I am conveinced that somebody with such a life history and education really can and should contribute to society. Just because of this background I could inspire people with less chances, self-esteem who suffer from the social environment dictated self-fullfilling prophecy of being a 'loser'. Universities do not support such efforts to climb out of the ivory tower, because of their business model.

I have the same suprising experience as you have: I felt many times better in 'real business', had more space to develop unconventional thoughts, felt more appreciated and experienced better Human Resources Management. About feeling appreciated: I 'suffer' my 6th temporary agreement. Having the end of my contract (January 1st ) and the economic and therefore labour market situation worldwide in mind, my mood is not very good, but I am also sure that I will find something more 'suitable'. What really pisses me off (sorry for the language): this constantly pushing and loss of autonomy:

If you want to be sure of your contract you have to:

• Develop, coordinate and teach two courses in three months,

• Participate in at least two international projects,

• Publish at least two international articles a year. Contributions to books and Dutch magazines are not rewarded. Articles in German, French or any other language than English are not welcome.

• Participate in developing new master programm'

• And so on.

Only if you stick to all their expectations you may deserve one day a permanent contract. I am not longer willing to work my self to death with, in many occasions, junk activities.

To sum it up: it seems clear that leaving the university is the only option for a more self-controled life. Funny that both, a bad social-economic situation and the university culture, seem to supress self controle.

Kind regards and I will join your website as much as I can!

* * *

(This comes from the moderator of a Positive Psychology listserv and is directed to me, or should I say, one of my aliases, in response to posts I find poignantly relevant despite the moderator's comments below. Pay close attention to his statement that he removed Wyatt "several times over the years." I had been removed only once.)

Kelly:

Upon viewing all of your emails to this list in the archives I find it interesting that the content of each email includes the URL to Wyatt Ehrenfels website. Being that the content of his website has nothing to do with the mission of this listserv and you are apparently advertising for his website with email you send, we are removing you from this listserv (just as we did with Wyatt several times over the years).

My hope is that you find another more suitable forum for your message.

* * *

(This comes from a clinical psychologist who also serves as the webmaster of a Division of the American Psychological Association)

J,

How dare you. "Vapid Drones?" "Holy War?" Comparing us to Nazis? You sicken me. This mailing list is not a forum for you to attack clinical psychologists any longer, you self-important, ignorant, paranoid, piece of shit. You disgust me and have totally crossed the line. I'm stunned by this post. Although this delusional ranting and compulsive insulting of others on the list has gone too far, this is nothing compared to the blatant disrespect you've shown to the victims of the recent attacks. In the wake of thousands of Americans deaths at the hands of truly evil men calling for a holy war, you would dare to post something like this? THIS IS A LIST ABOUT ISSUES IN CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY AND YOUR RESPONSE TO THE TRAGEDY WAS TO PUBLICIZE INANE MASTURBATORY RESEARCH REGARDING DREAMS WHICH TELL THE FUTURE, AND THEN BITCH LIKE THE SPOILED PIECE OF GARBAGE THAT YOU ARE THAT THE REST OF US DON'T DIG IT. HAVE YOU NO FUCKING EMPATHY, MAN? LEAVE US ALONE ALREADY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You know nothing of the large part of us, but seek to dehumanize, stereotype, and rail against us. For the record you feeble, self obsessed, delusional worm, no one here has spent much energy in disagreement with you. Your persecutory and grandiose delusions lead you to describe yourself as some sort of heroic character, standing against the tyranny of reductionism, but what you haven't noticed, is that no such conflict is going on. How the fuck do you know what we believe or don't believe? The only holy war going on is between your ears in your murky head. You are articulate, for a thought disordered asshole, but you don't know the first thing about debate, or discussion. You unfailingly resort to abuse, diatribe, and cruelty. YOU ARE ENGAGING IN A FORM OF TERRORISM ON THIS LIST, SEEKING TO HURT AND DISTURB ITS MEMBERS ON A DAILY BASIS AND IT MUST END. I AM NOT ALONE IN GETTING REALLY TIRED OF YOU and your attacking others to build yourself up day after day. I am a practitioner of Tendai Mikkyo esoteric Buddhism, and am a psychologist, and I am deeply invested in my spiritual and scientific beliefs and disciplines, but I don't need to use this list to cram my ideas down others throats. Your attacks are not based on your superior position in some holy war, they are some sort of really, really disturbed attempt to prop up your flailing self concept, and to draw still more rejection out of others, in some bizarre form of projective identification. Well, congratulations J., ever more people are struck by just how grotesquely arrogant and foul your personality is. You have insulted the victims of the gulags, the holocaust, and victims of terrorism in your hyperbolic rant, and AS ALWAYS YOU HAVE OPENLY ATTACKED PSYCHOLOGISTS. IF YOU HATE US SO MUCH, GO FUCK OFF AND LEAVE THE MAILING LIST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT!!!!!!!!!!

SO MANY CLINICIANS ARE SO SENSITIVE TO THESE ISSUES AND ARE SO DEDICATED!!!!!!!!

STOP YOUR ATTACKS!!!!!!!!!!!

Response from firefly:

I am pasting below for the general audience a copy of the original post to which the above clinical psychologist is replying. At the time, I believe the author of the above post was distressed by the acknowledgement of 1 or 2 other psychologists on the listserv of kernels of truth in my critique. Every field has a well-developed critical tradition, except Psychology. I will let my readers judge for themselves whether they think the response to my post was warranted and measured.

[NAME OF SUPPORTIVE PARTICIPANT OMITTED]:

Are you still trying to relate to these vapid drones? I think it is high time we realize that at the center of psychology is a "holy war" between the two different forms of spirituality: (1) Methodolatry -- one in which the scientific method (which I advocate as an instrument within the broader discourse and functional approach to understanding) is elevated to the level of supreme principle so that it becomes religion, much like the State assumed religious proportions in Nazi Germany and Communist Soviet Union. (2) A conservative attempt (such as mine) to reclaim a part of the psyche lost within professional culture, e.g. dreams and emotions. Even where emotions are studied, they are not really (for example, as when we become experts on major depressive disorder but fail to adequately probe the emotion of sadness).

Both sides are unshakably devoted to their position because the debate is rooted in an opposition between two fundamental life principles. To them, my pre-theoretical attempt to explore the broad relationship between dreaming and waking experience is considered quixotic, imprecise, undisciplined. To me, their professionalism is the hallmark of psychological unsophistication, ringing hollow, seeking a product or service external to the human nature it pretends to understand (but which it reduces to a synechdoche or caricature).

* * *

(This comes from the President of APA's History Division. This response comes after a post from one of my aliases that I have returned to the listserv under another name after having been involuntarily unsubscribed by the moderator for posting a link to my report on the mistreatment of applicants with disabilities by VA psychologists).

"Thanks for booting him off the listserve. He has a habit of signing himself up, using the lists inappropriately, and being removed. A very slow learner!"

Response from firefly:

This business about using the lists inappropriately -- if you define the appropriate use of listserves as narrowly as you do, we would be lacking for a great deal of substantive discussion. I dare say that when you post such childish remarks that you run the risk of being perceived as an avoidant personality who uses micromanagement tactics to protect her fragile sensibilities. While I can appreciate your need to jealously guard your dissonance-free zone, I recommend for the sake of the broader intellectual quality and freedom of the listserv that you simply delete my message rather than lobby for my removal. To comport yourself in such a manner is inconsistent with the dignity of your office as a President of an APA Division.

My "habit" as you put it, is to post (usually once over a few month period) a link to a cogent report that I carefully composed and edited for a targeted (i.e., relevant) audience. I know there might be people on this list with an interest in the disability report because the report is preceded by a similar report published by a member of the Fuller Theological Seminary faculty. It is one of the only reports of its kind, and this list is hosted by Fuller Theological Seminary.

I am astounded by the knack of psychologists to apply certain terms ritualistically as if to ward off their demons, by which I mean anything with which they disagree. One of these magic incantations is the word 'appropriate.' By referring to something as 'inappropriate,' you condemn it without commenting on its innate characteristics. I think this is unhealthy and I am sure it is anti-intellectual. I think that your continued adult development depends on your strategy not succeeding.

I am not sure to what I owe the displeasure of your comments. Actually this is the second of two comments you posted about me, the first of which called on me to apologize for comments I posted on a History & Theory message board. As Division 24, of which I was once a member, lays claim to the only critical tradition in this browbeaten field (i.e., critics being prominent and respected faculty from Georgetown and Brigham Young), I do not think my critical post was by any stretch of the imagination a misuse of the board, as you put it. But to turn around and instruct the moderator that his listserv has been infiltrated by someone who is routinely booted off other listserves is disingenuous at best. I was removed from only one listserv in the past, rightfully from the DIV42 listserv, as I am not an independent practitioner.

I will not edit myself to tread lightly on your pathologically delicate sensitivities. If everyone who made a different choice with respect to what to say or how to conduct research was booted out of psychology, Psychology would be a barren wasteland. Oh, wait. They are. And it is.

Perhaps you identify with someone in the report who might have practiced the kind of discrimination it exposed. You do have a knack for making people of all personalities feel like the target of extreme prejudice.

all the best,

J. Wyatt Ehrenfels

UPDATE: Listserv Moderator Apologizes to Ehrenfels and Allows Him to Re-subscribe to the listserv

Apparently, the listserv moderator did not see eye to eye with the APA Division President. After having removed Ehrenfels from the group in response to her complaint, he reviewed Ehrenfels's appeal and offered Ehrenfels both an apology and reinstatement in the group. Ehrenfels thanked the moderator for his evenhandedness and openmindedness.

* * *

(This comes from a graduate student replying to my criticism of Daniel Dennett's op-ed piece in the NY Times)

Hi, I'm J. Wyatt Ehrenfels. I know everything there is to know about everything. And when anyone says anything I don't like--or I somehow read something into what they said that I don't like, I whine and whine! You see, I believe in intuition. And therefore I can intuit anyone else's "real" thoughts and feelings--even if I have no proof. I somehow sense it from a cosmic plane; therefore, I'm smarter than they are! And so, as you can see, I'm always right and those big bad mean psychologists who just didn't understand the genius that is me will have to pay for hurting my poor little feelings! Wah, Wah!

Response from firefly:

That was juvenile. No attempt to frame the debate. No attempt to acknowledge or evaluate the argument on its merits. Just pure antipathy. Sure, you'll make an excellent therapist some day. And so explain to me how Dennett escapes your contemptuous tantrum. He is the one attempting to persuade us there is no God or life after death.

* * *

(This comes from a high school senior)

I'm a high school senior who has, as many do, been pondering upon what major was right for me. I felt that psychology is a broad enough major that it allows for many avenues and for the present seems like a reasonable major. However, after reading some of the critique and hearing some of the response from those who have come from the field, I'm beginning the reevaluation of my decisions. Having been a 3 time state champion debater and having heard every possible critique under the sun and defended many of them, I have learned one thing that I use to evaluate critiques. It comes when I realized that you can critique things all you want but without providing a feasible alternative then it is utterly pointless. So my question to you (you being those who support this critique and i guess most importantly the doc) what is the alternative you suggest for a person in my position who graduates in 7 days and is in some of the final stages of deciding on a major in order to begin college? What major do you suggest? And what form of discourse are you suggesting with your critique? If this is a question that has been answered or something that is relatively dumb, please forgive me but like I said I'm just emerging in the academic community.

Response from firefly:

Good question. I actually have an essay on the web site that addresses this, but it would be cold for me to refer you to it, so I'd like to respond personally.

Psychology can be effective in an adjutant role, which is to say as a (1) collection of courses, (2) a minor, or (3) a second major or (4) an interdisciplinary major. Many other majors (e.g. Criminal Justice) have innate psychological implications that are more efficiently and also effectively engaged within that major rather than in psychology, which is rather vacuous with respect to substantive content and issues. Unfortunately, while a course or two in psychology may be useful (e.g., Theories of Personality), some colleges require Introductory Psychology (and in some cases even other courses) as prerequisites. I suspect this insures faculty some regularity with respect to expectations of teaching load, but it also protects them from a critique like my own, which might inspire bright and open-minded individuals like yourself to cannabilize the curriculum by taking this or that course cafeteria-style. (I find it humorous that psychology professors tell students that without Introductory Psychology, students would be lost in the more advanced classes. The prerequisite system does not reflect a true latticework or stepwise gradation).

But whatever you decide, be guided by this principle. You want to put together a package of skills and knowledge that you can sell to employers. But in addition to career preparation, you also want to satisfy your most compelling curiosities and get a good general education. Psychology, in my opinion, neither trains nor educates (or more accurately, it trains undergraduates for graduate school in psychology, which will be beyond reach of most undergraduates anyway given all the competition for limited spots). Now some psychology majors do go on to graduate studies in Public Administration, Criminal Justice, Human Resource Development etcetera, but I would not rely on the undergraduate psychology major as a reliable stepping stone to these objectives.

Feel free to contact me with any additional questions or concerns. I wish you the best of luck with whatever you choose.

* * *

(This comes from a person of unknown background on a psychology listserv)

Im not going to waste my time on you, its quite obvious you are a retard, and thus a champion of the uneducated, of a similar ilk as Howard Stern, all talk no substance, fleeting entertainment, Enjoy your 15 minutes, the clock is ticking.

* * *

(This comes from a person of unknown background on a psychology listserv)

I don't think it's any secret that psych majors have problems; compared with other fields (like engineering). It's an interesting field, and has lots of attractive career opportunities. So it logically going to be over-crowded and suffer from other drawbacks (like requiring education usually beyond a bachelors for most of the good employement etc.).

I think like all areas of life, "if you play the cards.....ya take your chances". In retrospect, things haven't worked out nearly as well for me in pursuing this as what I would have wanted them too. But people when they pursue a career should go where their heart is. They should go with the field that intrigues them. The one that feels natural. For me that was psych. If people don't feel that way about it, they just are doing it because it kinda looks interesting and they don't have any better ideas. By all means, they should get out or at least heed your warnings. But if you are trying to convince the rest of us to question our decisions you ought to save your time and energy. We've already thought long and hard about our lives and our careers.

Response from firefly:

I agree. No one could have told me when I pursued my Bachelor's degree and again when I was an embattled doctoral student to "hang 'em up." I was absolutely determined to see through what I began at age thirteen. After my MA, (I received news I was placed on conduct probation the same week I was congratulated for having successfully defended my master's thesis), I knew that to survive I needed to complete my doctorate in a year and a half but that in the process I also knew I would never find psychology-related post-doctoral employment. Nevertheless, I saw it through simply for the love of my dissertation, "Dreaming & Stress Coping in Cancer Patients" (an unprecented excursion into the mind-body relationship).

So, I understand that my advice would be mitigated by intrinsic factors, and I would have it no other way. But having said that, I still want to help to take the sting (for individuals like yourself) out of the disillusionment, help you to manage your risks.

I learned some things since I finished my PhD. When I joined the private sector here in DC, I learned that private sector employees knew more about psychological phenomena than the denizens of the psychology world. Just this morning I enjoyed a discussion of Analytical Psychology with a 50-year-old technical writer who was astonished to learn this graduate student she met a few days earlier had never even heard of Jung. It would seem this colleague of mine is a Jungian scholar like myself (and yet she's never been a psychology major). Wherever I go, my colleagues seem to understand as I do what is really important and their conceptualization of what a science of psychology should look like is healthy and effective. They are also much brighter. Today as a funnel cloud passed over our office (and we were sequestered in an interior room), we discussed the role of the sino-atrial node within the heart's electrical system and the role of the oceanic belt in global temperature regulation. I distinctly remember that in psychology, my professors had not even heard of tachycardia (I once raised the issue in reference to differential diagnosis vis-a-vis panic disorder). If we were colleagues in a psychology department, I am convinced we could achieve more in a decade than any other department since its inception. And unlike most academics, they are not violent people. (Academics prejudices, professional gatekeeping, and aggressive evaluation procedures are not only undermining the quality of their field [blasting away its most vital parts like a shape-charger explosive device], but they assassinate characterologically, slander socially, and inflict undue emotional burdens.

I feel it is necessary for me to sleep well at night to know I have amply warned anyone who even remotely shares my scholarly motives, product standards, vocational interests, and appetite for intellectual freedom. People often look at my web site and say "well, that's just reactance." But the way I see it, and I am using an economic metaphor here, homogeneity and bureaucratization accounts for greater than 90% of psychology's gross national product. With the amount of misplaced and misguided energy expended on managing a massive framework of superfluous and constraining expectations, (and with the amount of misplaced and misguided energy complying with these constraints), psychology professors and researchers could easily learn enough to crawl out from underneath their reputation as a straw discipline (or alternatively power the entire state of California through a dozen heat waves). We are going absolutely nowhere, albeit very quickly.

(Follow-up Response to Reply from firefly)

Well I was warned plenty and that was back in the mid to late 1980s. The profession in California was already over crowded as far as therapists go (unless you lived in a remote area). I also seem to recall people warning me about the fact workers in mental health have the highest suicide rate than just about any other profession. And of course in grad school they warned us, that treatment times for therapies (as far as what insurance companies would pay) were getting progressively shorter, where in time many psychological problems/diagnoses may be treated purely with drugs. And naturally dimnishing the need for non-psychiatric, mental health workers. Although corporate psychology (a coproration paying for a counselor or psychologist to come in to reduce absences, workplace violence, etc. was starting to take off back then). As well as "coaching" etc.

(This is from a PhD in psychology serving as the moderator of the about.com listserv)

One thing I can say about studying psychology—well there are many things I can say about it, but this always comes to mind when people ask me how it is studying psychology—is that I never had a dull moment doing it. Later I also studied technology and business, but I can’t say the same about them. Psychology is just so much more interesting! And, although I am not doing the traditional and typical psychologist’s work now, I feel that I’ve got so much more from studying psychology than just a job.

That said though, I still see certain merits in Ehrenfels’ criticism of the field.

* * *

(This comes from an academic responding to a supporter of J. Wyatt Ehrenfels, who posted on a listserv a link to Ehrenfels's web page criticizing psychological research featured on CNN.com reporting that "opposites do NOT attract")

The snippet you post below is, quite frankly, analogous in its clarity of reason and argument to an orator gargling peanut butter and as convoluted as the small intestine of a road-kill racoon. Occam's razor, for example, is simplistically misconstrued--applied as the writer would argue it, the earth is indeed flat. The philosophy of science (and epistemology in general) are a bit more complex than this would imply . . . I must suspect that the author's failure in graduate school may have reflected a bit more than the nefarious conspiracy of the scientific Illuminati to stifle his or her innate Jungian insights (as the webpage so pedantically vents in so many places).

My first blush was that the interpretation of the "attraction of equals" premise was overextended, based only on what CNN offered, but that this is consistent with what may well be among the more pervasively tolerated "sins" of our discipline--to wit, speculating well beyond the limits of our data when writing our discussions. An equally tenable hypothesis, for example--and one that would include much more of the historical and peripheral literatures touching the same topics--might well suggest that these patterns of choice evolve socially with certain other features of the zeitgeist and do not at all represent more "hard-wired" rubrics. Indeed, the power of intellect and volition in evolution is nested in the malleability and variability they give a species *outside* its genetic programming.

Response from firefly:

I didn't fail out of graduate school, if that's what you are implying. My web site is clear that I earned a PhD in Social Psychology with a 3.93 GPA and a successful socio-medical dissertation. It should also be clear from my web site, since I make every effort to avoid the kind of motivated misunderstanding and lies that would depict me as nothing but a Jungian with an anti-science agenda that I am an independently-minded empiricist whose early education in psychology may have been conditioned by readings in Jung. But I am not anti-science. I may be more of a pure scientist than anyone in the field who has a stake in mistaking the institutional requirements for true scientific ones. True (or essential science) is a relatively open framework that allows the individual scientist a considerable degree of discretion so that he or she may draw constructively from his or her wits and remain faithful to the demands of his or her subject matter. The institutional requirements, which I have also described elsewhere as "an ever-widening nucleus of superfluous norms," "paradigmatic science," and "Procrustean pork," constrains creativity, limits discretion, alienates the individual scientist from his or her own wits, and undermines an adequate, accurate, and authentic exploration of any phenomenon or issue larger than a breadbox (or the proverbial sandbox). I will not allow anyone to depict me as anti-science when in actuality I am more of a scientist and the vst majority of academics are pseudo-professional clerks, vapid drones, and administrative savants.

"You write, My first blush was that the interpretation of the "attraction of equals" premise was overextended, based only on what CNN offered, but that this is consistent with what may well be among the more pervasively tolerated "sins" of our discipline--to wit, speculating well beyond the limits of our data when writing our discussions. But I know this is something I am NOT comfortable tolerating. The over-extension is political diatribe that does violence to broader research and ultimately to the truth of the matter. I am pleased that I am actually converting a lot of former skeptics and adversaries into supporters based on my critical response to this attraction research. I could only hope that more researchers within the field will come around to me enough to give my position enough of a look so they see what they haven't wanted to see up to now -- that I embody solid scientific reasoning.

"You also write, An equally tenable hypothesis, for example--and one that would include much more of the historical and peripheral literatures touching the same topics--might well suggest that these patterns of choice evolve socially with certain other features of the zeitgeist and do not at all represent more "hard-wired" rubrics." Perhaps. Tenable. Interesting. You'd think SOMEONE would actually look into it. I think it is quite incriminating that no one really has explored this. My whole point is that we don't explore the full range of an issue or phenomenon. We settle into a prevailing bias and then, in the words of one of my supporters, create a psychological school of thought to suit the lab technicians.

"You also write, Indeed, the power of intellect and volition in evolution is nested in the malleability and variability they give a species *outside* its genetic programming. True. So what happened to our volition and malleability and variability as research scientists?

* * *

(This comes from a graduate student responding to Ehrenfels's evaluation of the attraction literature as junk science)

Wyatt,

The way I view this whole issue is simple. I have read your article on this subject as well as the main points emphasized by the CNN article and I have a much greater appreciation for the latter. Also, I believe you have misinterpreted what the article meant by ¡°attraction.¡± The value of any hypothesis is in its implications, that is any other conclusions that can be derived from it; its ability to complete the puzzle. Thus a significant hypothesis allows itself to be tested. The points you made in your article...well, there are no points.

You have a very shortsighted way of analyzing matters. Tell me, exactly why is ¡°love at first sight¡± so important in the whole scheme of things? ¡°Psychodynamic self-regulation¡± you say? Why is this so important? What do we ultimately mean by ¡°important?¡± What exactly is ¡°love at first sight? Through extensive research (that is hard work), and through suitable communication in the scientific language, we may eventually be able to view these subjects with a greater appreciation; in relation to a large, integrated scheme. In contrast to what you may believe, mainstream psychology is delving significantly deep into psychological phenomena; certainly ¡°deeper¡± than you. Your points are very general, superficial, and intangible.

It is realistic to say that mainstream psychology has limitations in approach, nevertheless these are realistic limitations and we are doing the best we can within these limitations; we are certainly not de-emphasizing imagination. ¡°Truth¡± does not come easy. ¡°Truth¡± can only be looked at in relation to other ¡°truths.¡± I am confident in saying that mainstream psychology has adopted a great approach-despite our humbling limitations-in finding these¡°truths.

Response from firefly:

You're right. The way you view it is simple, and truth does not come easy. It is my contention that the Cornell researchers (and their ilk) are taking the easy (paved) road.

1. They need to jettison the word attraction for some other word like relationship stability or longevity, which is not an uninteresting subject in its own right, but it is clearly not what we mean by attraction within the popular culture. The term is intended to create confusion and deceive the public into thinking that opposites do NOT attract. Attraction refers to a process whereby individuals feel drawn to one another. It may be a physical attraction. It may be some intuitive impetus to what feels like a mystical union of sorts. It may also be other things. But when someone like you comes around and questions the importance of these phenomena, you are basically giving me more clout with the public. When I repost this message on my web site, the sense among the general public will be that you are out of touch with human nature -- that you are indifferent to what is important to people about their own life experiences.

2. This research completes no puzzles. Testability is important, yes, and the research I would have designed would have met the dual challenges of being both testable and relevant. I am not as comfortable or cavalier as many in the field about giving up the latter for the former. And my research would not have deceived the public with claims to "opposites NOT attracting." This is an irresponsible conclusion to draw from their data. They need to delimit their conclusions so they do not over-extend the facts. But HAD THEY DONE THAT, CNN.com would never have popularized the results on their news portal. The lie is more sensational than the truth. But what amazes me is how you can convince yourself that it is the Cornell researchers who are doing something noble. The truth, and if I am correct, it is that complimentarity is a complex dynamic involving both similarity and oppositionality, is even more interesting and valuable than the proposition that opposites do NOT attract. More importantly, it is research that would not be driven by a political agenda (i.e., to cleave the public of its lore and perceive psychologists as gods among men). But by being disingenuous, the Cornell researchers hurt both the truth and the public interest -- all for a headline and a line of ink on a CV.

3. Puzzle-piecing. This mentality has its uses. But we should not engineer a field to discourage or punish exploratory research that thinks outside the box (i.e., puzzle). Both my master's thesis and doctoral dissertation had no precedents, but if I designed them to fill some hole or extend someone else's work, I never would have happened upon original and worthwhile facts about cancer and dreaming. A sense of community is important, but when we manage a framework of expectations as stifling and stagnating as the ones that govern research and publication, we compromise the value of individual research, and regardless of how strong the links among research are within an organized body, they cannot compensate for poor quality studies. As many zeros as we choose to multiply, our product is still zero. And while this is a tad of a hyperbole (for sake of illustration), I do believe that our research literature in many areas is "a product of multiple zeros." We need to stop thinking in terms of hypotheses and think in terms of questions. We need to stop thinking in terms of variables and start thinking in terms of phenomena. It is the indigenous methodological lexicon that is partly responsible for superficial excursions into shards of human nature. We have a puzzle precisely because we have shattered perfectly good mirrors. With respect to the attraction literature, our puzzle, once complete, will reveal at best a caricature of human relationships.

4. I suspect that by points, you mean substantive conclusions about attraction. My article does not pretend to have any definitive answers. My article is only meant to liberate true attraction research by calling attention to the biases and flaws within the current literature. The major point is that THIS IS NOT REALLY ATTRACTION RESEARCH. And most of the responses I have received to date say something to the effect of "you're right. This does not mean anything."

5. Why is love at first sight important? Well, it's not the only attraction event, but one of many, and they are all important. People do the damndest things for love at first sight. It is an intoxicating state. It often throws one into a funk where they change the way they view themselves or present themselves to the world. Thus the NATURE of the person in whom one falls head over heels ends up having enormous influence over the course in which self-development will be deflected.

An even more interesting proposition is that the NATURE of the person may not have been selected randomly. In other words, while we may think physical appearance is the impetus to attraction and the personality coincidentally accompanies that appearance, it is quite conceivable that the person fell head over heels in response to something they sensed in that personality (or that physical appearance and personality are part of the same image package). It is quite common for people to fall head over heels for someone of the opposite sex that others do not generally regard as beautiful (or in some cases, that even the person admits to not finding 'objectively beautiful'). But there is a mythological, romantic, or sexual attraction nevertheless, something that tugs and compels and drives the person to think, feel, or behave in uncharacteristic ways. The attraction transforms, in some cases for the better (perhaps compensating for personal biases, deficiencies, and excesses with respect to our value system, range of experiences, and skill set) but in many cases also for the worse (putting us in situations in which we are ill-equipped, maladjusted, or just plain destructive).

You sound like you are too quick to believe that we cannot operationally define 'love at first sight' sufficiently to study it. I believe we can. We just can't be intellectually lazy or existentially timid. Conceptualization and fact collection is hard work too. The data analysis is the easy part. And the way we do research today, we go directly to data, having research subjects provide us with ready-made numbers for our SPSS windows program, so we could pump out our one or two inferential statistics to adjudicate the binary (reject/fail-to-reject) hypothesis. This is lazy and unproductive. Nothing is explored. The only thing it builds is a CV and our careers. The thinking in this field and the scope and depth of fact collection has woefully deteriorated.

So you just keep on telling yourself that what you are doing is true science and noble. I guess the important thing is that YOU believe it. Because I sure don't. It is the research literature that is woefully intangible and superficial.

* * *

(This comes from a person of unknown characteristics)

I am sympathetic to your crusade and am impressed with the level of commitment and integrity implied in taking such a stand. I hope you can find ways to do your research and answer your calling despite the shortcomings of the system, as well as maintaining connections with academic insiders as well. That's been my response to the profound limitations I've also encountered in pursuing a career in psychology.

* * *

(The following is a response to a document I posted on my web site exposing widespread discrimination by VA psychologists against persons with disabilities)

You might contact Dr. Betsy Zaborowski at The National Federation of the Blind in Baltimore MD (410)659-9314 with this information.

Response from firefly:

Thanks for the information. The person featured in my article has been in extensive communication with the NFB over a year ago. The NFB expressed an interest in using the case politically but were not willing to commit any legal resources. A consultation with a prominent Northern Virginia Civil Rights attorney estimated that a 6-figure cost for a lawsuit, given the complex nature of what needed to be established beyond a reasonable doubt (i.e., expert witness testimony).

I was very unhappy with the NFB cause-selection (i.e., allocation of funds and publicity). While the NFB appears interested in suing the producers of the feature film Mr. Magoo and, believe it or not, the technology that alerts visually impaired pedestrians to the status of traffic in crosswalks, they do not appear interested in investing their resources where it would make the most sense and difference.

* * *

(This comes from a professor from a college in Milwaukee)

I find it remarkably non-compelling. I'm sorry - I really don't mean to be mean here. But his stuff really does sound like a lot of rather childish whining to cover up his lack of interest in rigor. In some places this really shows through strongly, as when he writes:

"Many dream researchers have never remembered a dream in their lives and dismiss the significance of dreams out of hand as a way of coping with the feeling they may be missing out".

and

"Despite the impeccable, formally unassailable deployment of methodology -- the laboratory setting, complete with white coats and gleaming metal instruments -- disguises intellectually lazy, existentially timid, logically sloppy, and uninspired thinking about dreaming. No amount of wires and EEGs can compensate for the lack of an interesting theory or adequate survey of the landscape of possibilities".

The former is an unsupported ad hominem, and the latter is one of those old strawman arguments I mentioned earlier. It merits a yawn.

Earlier in that same essay he writes:

"I find the language of neurotransmitters and neural pathways a real conversation-killer. From the moment the word 'brain' is uttered, I lose control of the dialogue and lose interest in the phenomena we set out to explain. Perhaps this is precisely what brain-based theorists want -- to monopolize the conversation and control access to the tools and language of science -- in effect to monopolize legitimacy. No matter how elegant and empirically valid my explanations of dreaming, most people would not consider my research complete without corroborating evidence from the brain".

So where is his "elegant and empirically valid" explanation of dreaming? I'll admit to not having looked through the entire site, but I don't see it.

Much of the rest of that essay is an attack on materialism, and has the same problem that creationist attacks on evolution have. No, we do not have a complete materialist explanation of consciousness. Does he have a better alternative? Attacking what has obviously been far and away the most promising line of research (simply because it is not completed) is easy, and lazy. Coming up with a better explanation (one that does not have far more holes in it) is far more difficult. Were he to accomplish that, he would find that the antipathy towards his work would become admiration overnight. The fact that he has put so much energy into attacking rather than producing is a sure sign that he has no ideas worth pursuing, like the creationist.

The diagnosis is pretty straightforward - here's yet another guy who thinks too highly of himself, and is angered that the rest of the world doesn't think the way that he does. He wants to revolutionize psychology, but he just simply doesn't have any good ideas. He gets positive feedback on his attacks (I suppose mostly from others who have the same overly high impressions of themselves), and apparently hasn't even noticed that he has slipped from the noble goal of producing something to the pathetic practice of public whining. He'd do well to close up that website, and turn his life around. There is almost certainly something that he's at least fairly good at, and it'd be a very good idea for him to start looking for it, and leave the psychological theorizing to those with a better grasp of the subject matter.

Response from firefly:

I was excited that I was forwarded this criticism because the criticism is itself a microcosm of the academic culture that produces our psychological research. Like the research, it refuses to meet an idea or a stimulus where it stands. It skirts an issue or phenomenon without facing it, without taking up its substance.

The author demonstrates a fundamental lack of attention and reflection. The reason why he is forced to rationalize the support I receive is that my supporters approach my web site with a healthy balance of skepticism and open-mindedness. The implication that I oppose rigor for the sake of opposing rigor is not unlike criticisms I used to receive (e.g., I am anti-science) even as I waved the flag of empiricism. To maintain such a position is to neglect my statements that good research is simply research that is not rigorous prematurely for the sake of rigor or for the sake of advancing the publication status or professional persona of the author. Rigor, as I mention often on my web site, is too often a way of dressing up something unsubstantive (i.e. of adding perfume to a pile of compost). Advanced statistical analyses pack a powerful punch when delivered in their proper course, but meaningful research into obscure or unfettered mysteries often require a lot of preliminary groundwork-laying research, broad open-ended methodologies that emphasize conceptualization and fact collection over the cosmetic appearance of formality and finish. Such research incorporates exploratory and descriptive techniques and often builds a fund of adequate qualitative information as a basis for coding and conversion into quantities that can be manipulated by advanced statistics. Research questions vary with respect to the extent to which they suffer from a lazy and premature leap to a specific class of statistics designed to draw confirmatory inferences about the validity of a null hypothesis. The transformation of meaningful questions into null hypotheses is itself a premature and presumptuous practice that bleeds the questions of their meaning and the research of its scope and depth. One way around this criticism is to require or reinforce research that addresses either insignificant questions or technical issues smaller than a bread box. I describe such a state of affairs as marginalization. A great deal of psychological research assumes such form. Other research tries to fit the larger-than-bread box question into the unnecessarily narrow knowledge production grinder and the result is distortion. A good deal of psychological research creates a caricature of the phenomena under study. My only request of the field is that it relaxes its restrictions and reinforcement structure to make it possible for people interested in addressing the big questions to engage in the kind of flexible and fluid research we see in other fields and do so without short-circuiting their careers. Toward this end I offered some suggestions on my web site, contrary to what the author of this reply would have me believe.

I love to hear someone like this critic complain about ad hominem attacks in the same e-mail in which he makes such statements as "There is almost certainly something that he's at least fairly good at, and it'd be a very good idea for him to start looking for it, and leave the psychological theorizing to those with a better grasp of the subject matter." While it is impossible for me NOT to take his comments personally as they are addressed to me and me alone, the author is not required to take this web site personally. The web site does not mention him specifically. He could very well argue that, unlike many of his colleagues, he does good research. But he does not do this. He recognizes the web site as a description of his own activities or he identifies so strongly with the profession/institution that he is not capable of giving himself the distance he needs to address the merits of an argument on its own terms. If he had, I suspected he would have more to say about my critique than simply that it contains no good ideas and smacks of an age-old criticism of academia. Such statements are not scientifically-minded. For a response as lengthy and wordy as his, there are no specifics. When he calls for my data about dreams, he was correct to qualify his remark with the statement that he had not seen the entire site. I posted hundreds of pages of documentation discussing my research methodologies and findings about dreams, not that any findings are required to validate my argument that brain-based explanations alienate people from the phenomena they wish to understand. Contrary to his hopes, I am not about to succuumb as a critical mass of ad hominem attacks from those who identify with the institution and take my web site personally. I can sustain the attacks. As a supporter once commented of me, the threat of rejection is like water off a duck's back to this strange dude. I simply cannot feel for a man who cannot handle the stress of one criticism when I have to absorb personal criticisms from dozens of adversaries who feel offended by my critique. If I were to author a piece titled 'The Anatomy of the Academic,' I would devote one whole chapter to 'thin skin.'

* * *

(This comes from a psychology student)

lol ... hahaahhahahaha .. me doubled wid laughter

this man z so concious of himself...

u r guilty in spoiling d image of psych mr.J.. thats why u go on giving explanations for what hasnt even been asked from u ..

dont let us (students) become afraid of our first love of life, that is PSYCHOLOGY. plz let us go our way .. n i'm storing ur address in my address book .. n one day when i'll be a psych professional (a successful one ) .. then i'll email u n ask ur views abt psych as a profession ... n graduate + studies in psychology.

ur comments n views explained in ur site are just ... dash dash (dont want to use any harsh words)

can u explain it in simple english? (if u really mean to say anything)

waiting for comments by other ppl too

Response from firefly:

I'm afraid you misunderstand me. I am not saying that you or anyone else for that matter cannot be successful in psychology. Clearly if you look around you you will notice professionals and academics who have achieved careers for themselves. What I AM saying however (and you can attach a rather insipid-looking smiling face to the end of this sentence [apparently he can't smile without biting his tongue clear off], IS THAT those who wish to pursue an (a) adequate exploration of (b) psychologistic phenomena will have (c) extraordinary difficulty finding his or her (d) niche in institionalized psychology and that (e) on the whole, the discriminatory net prevents the vast majority of such people from making it into the field or from making it into the field with their integrity and their objectives INTACT.

You may simply be too young to understand the argument, which is not a knock on you by any means. I was young once too. And at one time, I was also very enthusiastic about this field.

So, rather than waiting 10-12 years to e-mail me with news of your successful placement in the field, why don't you wait 20-30 years to e-mail me with news that you are capable of understanding my argument.

I do not know much about you. But based on your demeanor and discourse, your strike me as someone whose 'English' (if you could call it that) is difficult to understand for entirely different reasons. In some ways, this may handicap you in your search for a place in the field of psychology, but in other ways, it could be a blessing. Not knowing anything about you, I still feel this is an opportunistic place to raise an issue I had not raised earlier, which is that intelligence has absolutely no bearing whatsoever in the success or failure of persons in Psychology. Just compliance and imitation. Do what they say. Work within their expectations. Appear to celebrate these expectations. And there is no limit to how far you can go. Well, unless you have a disability. (I recently released that document on the news page of my web site for those of you who have waited for the evidence the past 6 months).

* * *

(This comes from a double major in archaeology and psychology)

The 16 points page is a case in point -- what look like ads at the top, and no conspicuous list of 16 points which is the expectation set up, at least by the URL. However, for anyone not turned off by that and takes the time to click on some of the links, there's some great info here. ALL of the article links should be required reading by ANYONE considering getting a BA in psych. A lot of people drop any such plans after a first year course reveals to them just how irrelevant psychology is in addressing important questions about this human animal. I got a BA with a double major in psych and archaeology, and the archaeology major provided the greater insight into human nature.

I think you may need to hire a web designer or spend some time on making the site clearer. I normally delete posts that look like thinly disguised adverts and you're on the edge of that. Can be a fine line, since it would be awfully nice to be able to make money doing something good that one feels passionately about, but there are so many out there who seem focussed just on the conning people out of money -- in fact the 'humanistic', 'transpersonal', etc. areas of psychology can somethimes seem like worse offenders that the mainstream academic branch who often don't really seem to care a whole lot about anything outside the ivory tower, indeed may even have contempt for it -- hard to exploit folk directly that way, though if people knew what gov't funding of psych dept's was going for in some cases they might feel somewhat fleeced on the tax dollar front.

* * *

(This comes from an individual of unknown background)

If you're sending out advance review copies I would be interested in one.

The overall thrust looks interesting, and I suspect reflects the experience of a lot of people who don't bail after their first 1st year psychology course and wind up wondering if they shouldn't have bailed after their first 1st year psychology course.

* * *

(This comes from an assistant professor/listserv moderator at a university in South Carolina. It was broadcast to the psychology students and appears to be oblivious to the eavesdropping J. Wyatt Ehrenfels)

Dear Students,

I am sorry you received that advertisement today. To be honest, I am actually pretty angry about it. Please know that the psychology department does not endorse or know this individual. This list is supposed to serve our students with useful information not result in unwanted advertisements. Unfortunately, there is nothing we can do about it at this time, except insure that we do not share the list address with anyone not on the list. This is tough to do since not only is the listserv mentioned on the psychology department page, I think the server name can be found through a search on the [UNIVERSITY NAME] page.

Here's some info from our IT people regarding what we can do: Unfortunately, there is nothing we can do to prevent this. If the list name gets out and put on a spammers list, the only way to get around it would be to rename the list then inform everyone that is on the list of the new name.

Advertisers and spammers can get email addresses in various ways including scanning web pages for email addresses, sending randomly generated addresses to different email systems hoping they get legitimate responses, etc.

My only real suggestions would be to wait and see if this is an isolated incident. If it doesn't happen again, then I would not worry too much about it. If it keeps happening, we can discuss further the possibility of changing the list name.

The only other thing I can suggest is to instruct the members of that list to not give out the list address to anyone that is not part of the list.

Response from firefly:

I find this response to my announcement interesting. It portrays the announcement as a commercial advertisement when, in actuality, there is no mention of any products in the text of the announcement. Moreover, while some site-related T-shirts can be purchased on the web site, it is quite obvious from both the tone of the announcement and the design of the web pages that this is an information delivery portal intended to aid students by raising awareness of the odds and obstacles associated with career development and education. While the message is unsolicited, it is clearly targeted to psychology majors and utilizes none of the fraudulent or evasive tactics associated with true SPAM. There is also a means by which to contact the author of the message, which can be achieved by either replying to the e-mail or by consulting the e-mail address posted on any one of the web pages.

There is much the professor has to gain by portraying the message as SPAM. First, the relevance of the message for its recipients is diminished. Secondly, its credibility as a source of information is also compromised.

I was always curious as to how a professor might react in this situation. It is clear to the professor that I intend to be of service and support to the student population. However, it is also clear that my message casts doubt on the validity of psychology education and training. I think however that rather than bluntly deny any association to the web site, the professor could have used the message as a springboard for discussion. The professor could have claimed to agree with many of the criticisms, but then also claimed to be a 'different kind of program' and thus unworthy of my criticisms. After all, my criticisms do not target any one program or even identify any programs by name. Professors who disavow the fireflySun.com web site run the risk of alienating all students who, at some point during their career, find more than a kernel of truth in my arguments. They also run the risk of appearing either 'out of touch' or of 'putting their own reputation ahead of student welfare.' Of course, the professor did not repudiate any of the criticisms or, for that matter, address any of the content on the web site, except to portray the e-mail as SPAM.

* * *

Call me a skeptic, but I have grave doubts that the modern day Laing would really join a small group like this.

Despite this, however, his work does provide the material for a good debate. Putting aside his motivations, the points he raises are valid. Psychology has lost sight of its roots and has become fixated on achieving the status of "science" and infatuated with the null hypothesis. Its also losing its unique identity with the increasing emphasis on reductionism and even proposals that psychologists should prescribe drugs. The real question is, who's to blame?

How many people do you meet day to day who suffer from psychological problems? Loads, I'd bet, especially in your job. Yet a high percentage of those people could be helped to live happier and more fulfilling lives. The knowledge is there, but it just isn't reaching the people. Why? I'd say there are two reasons. First, the government just won't spend the money on providing the services of trained psychologists. Second, there still remains this stupid stigma in society regarding mental illness.

With the latter, the recent advertising campaign will, hopefully, do some good, but a helluva lot more could be done. They managed it fairly quickly with AIDS, but it just doesn't seem to be happening with mental illness. Maybe they should discard that phrase and give it a nice little acronymn, like IBP (Inappropriate Behaviour Problems), cos in an awful lot of cases that's a more fitting description. There are so many areas psychology could help a lot more people in, aggression, depression, fear, abuse, but people won't ask for the help because they're scared of being labelled.

Even if they did ask for it though, they'd find it wasn't there because the government won't spend the money on employing psychologists, unless its to create spin and advise them on advertising campaigns during elections. If they did they might find they'd save money in the long run; less drugs (both prescribed and non-prescribed), less hospitalisation due to violence, depression, etc., less working days lost through stress. On top of that we'd have a far happier, more peaceful society, which can only be a good thing, can't it?

Then you've got a bonus. More research could be based on reality instead of in the lab. The information produced from all this work could be pored over by academics whose findings would have a heck of a lot more validity than they do at present. The research topics would also become free of the control of professors in their "ivory towers" and more focused on reality. If someone wanted to study a particular area then let them do it while they're out working in the field.

Before you say it, yeah, I know. I'm dreaming. But without dreams you'll never have change and without change.........

* * *

The next two entries were offered by individuals on message board devoted to Jungian Analytical Psychology

You're doing a lot of drilling and probing of the impotence there J. Keep up the good work.

I can only imagine, J. Wyatt. Being a reader and admirer of Jung's work, I sense your dilemma from this persepective. Your work is very relevant and I get a charge out of your choice of verbiage. It's awesome.

~ ~ ~

"Sun" Exposure fairly well sums up my experience in the professional sphere of the mental health system. I share many of your observations and, at the same time, hope your use of "diagnostics" is tongue-in-cheek. In order to maintain my own psychic compensation in the atmospheres you describe, and among the peers found there, I rely heavily on Jung's admonitions regarding organizations in general, and the collective unconscious in particular. As far as my professional associates are concerned, I know nothing, I do nothing, I suspect nothing while anticipating just about anything. I reserve my very infrequent insights for myself and, if they happen to apply, for my clients.

Distancing myself from this sorry pack, and yet remaining functional within it, is a delicate balance indeed.

We have people just like this here at the Forum. I would just have to change a few words to make the fit. I have highlighted words for emphasis, not as the words I would change.

quote (from fireflySun.com):

"Behind a fetishistic rhapsodizing about multiculturalism/diversity -- behind a paternalistic regard for the welfare of their students and the public -- is a hatred (emphasis added) for a diversity of ideas/interests -- a campaign against individual talent and freedom.

There is a form of black-and-white thinking (emphasis added) in effect limiting the depth of their diversity so that it is only skin-deep. Their priority is one of managing the impression of solidarity and legitimacy for the public and for their students.

At the cost of intellectual freedom and the pursuit of truth is this imperative to preserve group harmony (emphasis added) and to maintain and extend norms that suppress or conceal a diversity of research interests and pet theories.

While psychology professors are quick to call attention to the fact that they study a variety of topics, they are unable to defend themselves against two key criticisms: (1) that compliance (emphasis added) with unessential and stultifying elements of their scientific paradigm is non-negotiable (emphasis added) and (2) that these norms have particularly adverse (i.e. discriminatory) effects on students of phenomena closest to the heart of the human condition (e.g., dreams), phenomena that do not lend themselves as readily to the one-size-fits-all knowledge production combine.

In addition to a systemic prejudice by norms, there is a visceral prejudice carried in the individual members themselves in the form of a para-skeptical contempt for phenomena (emphasis added) which does not facilitate the unified but stringent framework of expectations and which does not facilitate the management of the pseudo-scientific persona (emphasis added) of the profession that defines their personal identities. (Excellent!!- [NAME OMITTED])

Mastering a pro-diversity rhetoric distracts their students from recognizing the polymorphously perverse forms of oppression that stunt real progress in critical areas of psychological knowledge. (Yay!)

And it does not end there. Laced throughout their rhetoric also are terms for the sake of which they claim to defend their status quo, terms like 'scientific standards,''mental hygiene,''public welfare,''professionalism,' 'appropriateness,' 'willingness to adjust,' and 'perfect fit.'

These terms are often invoked ritualistically like magic incantations to ward off scrutiny and to condemn students and phenomena that make it more difficult for them to pursue their real goals:" (emphasis added)

end quotes

Your site is right on the mark. This sickness is everywhere the over-intellectualized mind steps in with its own disease as a cure for the 'world and its problems', when it really is looking to find another scapegoat, another one 'worthier of crucifixion'.

* * *

(This comes from a former school psychologist)

Hi. I just found this group from a link to a psychology newsgroup and find J.W. Ehrenfels research quite fascinating, probably because I definitely relate to it on a very personal level. I have a B.A. in Psych and an M.A. in Psych with a School Psych Credential. I was a School Psychologist for 6 years before throwing in the towel with complete disdain and disgust for a field that I have put many years and lots of money into. I was unemployed for a few months, very depressed about my realization that I had chosen the wrong field. I am working again, barely able to support myself (I used to make 70 grand for a 200 day year with excellent health benefits). Now, I'm working two jobs 7 days a week just to keep my head above water and not have to ask my parents for money to help with my school loan repayments. I am Licensed as an Educational Psycholgist but that doesn't seem to mean anything to anybody. I don't have a practice...I'm almost too scared to start one because I have been so disillusioned by what I have seen with mental health laws. Now I work full time in sales making $9/hour plus commission and I also work part time as a waitress and bartender making minimum wage but pulling in great tips. I'm also working on a career writing children's books...but that could be fruitless for money but the expression is definitely good for my soul. I LOVE my work now, it just doesn't have the same monetary appeal and I struggle in other areas because of it. Who knew I would enjoy sales? Now I am climbing up the corporate ladder. I had to start at the bottom position a year ago next to high school graduates. I've moved up quickly and my potential for growth in management and operations is recognized so I have faith that I'll be compensated for my efforts in due time. But, it has not been without lots of self-doubt about my past decisions and anger at the field of psychology for being such a dehumanizing profession.

Thanks for reading my post.

* * *

(This comes from psychotherapist Scott Adams, who contributed the witty response to my 16-points memo featured on the The Point.

I will leave it to your discretion as to how to promote the essay, but I appreciate your willingness to advertise it among the top links on your site when you send out announcements. I'm not too concerned about any responses I may or may not receive, although I'm happy to respond to those who raise comments or questions.

It may be of interest to you to know that I have long considered psychology to be the last battle ground of good and evil. Despite psychology's seemingly limited impact on society at large, I think that the kinds of ideas and conclusions reached by the field have an impact far beyond the immediately perceivable. In the same sense that art, in its various forms, impacts the common man's sense of life and what is possible, I believe psychology works in an indirect way through society to impact how people view life. I suppose that the old statement of "the hand the rocks the cradle is the one that rules the world" can be elaborated to say "the ideas that shape the mind are the ideas that rule the world." What we conclude about human nature, the mind, reality, and the interaction of these will be of great consequence. I don't think either of us are willing to let the wrong ideas dominate, although our impact may not occur in our lives. Personally, I have never believed that anything I have to say will be considered relevant while I'm alive. But that it is relevant beyond my life, for all time, is what I seek. You have provided a forum for that, and for which I am very grateful.

Until next time.

* * *

(This comes from, strangely enough, a Jungian furniture maker who protested my participation in a Jungian forum

Who appointed Wyatt sheriff here anyway? Seems he barged in with both six guns ready to do battle with the evil in our midst just like Bush barged into Iraq. This guy is a fraud artist. He is part of the same system he pretends to deride. Even without his pseudonym, he is not who he pretends to be nor stands for what he pretends to stand for.

According to his web site, I think he is selling "T" shirts and books . . . in other words: SPAM.

All that he has said about flawed research and backstabbing is common knowledge. I've written about it in my essays but nobody cares. That is, unless someone decides to write a fictional book about it. Maybe he might even get to sell the movie rights to it to Hollywood . . . no, they worked that academia conspiracy thing to death already.

Response from firefly:

This is good stuff. I had thought I had peaked here. This morning, having considered the direction in which the discussion was moving, it became evident to me that this topic had run its course. The majority of forum participants had weighed in on the matter, and it seemed like there was nothing more constructive to add. A flame which burns biggest and brightest quickly exhausts its wick. After breaking a personal 2-year record for accesses and visits for the month of April (thanks to this forum), it appears the activity on my web site is beginning to subside to human proportions.

However, I am stunned to learn that [NAME OMITTED] created a new topic devoted to me -- 'firefly in the soup.' I suspect it may run in my absence, as I expect to take my leave of this forum this Tuesday, when I have to leave for the other coast on business. Seems like a natural time to break.

I have no aspirations of being 'sheriff'of this forum, as [NAME OMITTED] claimed. I can't imagine how anyone could think of me in those terms, as I have been swimming upstream since my inaugural post. While I'd like to [NAMES OF SUPPORTERS] as late for their contributions in stimulating debate, it is quite evident that [NAMES OF ADVERSARIES OMITTED] remain embittered. This I have difficulty understanding in that I do not intrude on the affairs of other threads. With the exception of one post on 'relationship with the shadow,' I have kept to myself, which is to say I restricted my activities to the topic I initiated. And I will disappear as soon as interest in this topic is exhausted or as soon as it fails to compete with fresh topics.

But if you are looking for a sheriff, I suspect I know who'd like the job. He's clearly declared his candidacy with a purely polemical and ad hominem thread devoted entirely to the assassination of my character and motives. Curiously enough, it remains the only thread that recorded 0 responses.

* * *

(This comes from a participant in psychological research)

Having participated briefly in a psychological research study as a "subject", I would like to relay my experience, as I found it to be similiar to what J described: "ology" with no respect for the "psyche". I have PTSD, and was trying to earn some money to help pay for therapy. This study was being run by a well known trauma research center, and being overseen by a published and also well known trauma "expert". The center is also affiliated with a medical college. The pay for participating in the study was significant, it required weekly visits to the center for a course of 3.5 months, as well as sending in spit samples by courier on a regular basis. The center was comparing the effectiveness of Prozac, EMDR, vs. placebo in PTSD treatment. If you ended up in the placebo group (which neither you or the reserachers would know until completion of your study treatment), you would be given 12 weeks of the treatment of your choice for free (in order to keep it "ethical"). Full disclosure was made to me up front.

I was screened on the phone, and then invited in as a subject. My intake appointment was almost 3 hours-I took many written standardized psychological tests (to screen for other disorders, as well as measure levels of dissociation etc.).I was also given a business card with the pager number of one of the head researchers, where I could reach him 24/7 if I had any "adverse" effects from particpating in the study. The Psychologist I saw on intake was young, probably fairly new to the field.

They wanted me to write out 2 scripts. One a neutral script of a regular experience from the same time frame as the trauma, and one describing the trauma. On the next visit they were going to play tapes of both scripts, hook me up to machines, and measure my respiration, skin conduction, heart rate, and muscle tension as I listened to both scripts. They were also going to measure levels of certain "flight or fight" hormones in my system via lab tests, both before and after listening to the scripts.

I had a full blown anxiety attack during the first appointment, just writing out the trauma script. I told them I wasn't coming back, but the intake researcher talked me into returning, which I did against my better judgement, because I needed the money to pay for my therapy.

I returned for my next appointment, and when they showed me the room where I would be attached to the machines while listening to the scripts, I refused to partipate any further, and left. The psychologist that I saw for the intake called me numerous times, and tried to talk me into coming back. I refused to return, as I was only subjecting myself (IMO) to further trauma, and it wasn't good for my mental health.

Now I know trauma research is important,especially for treatment implications, but what I went through as a research "subject" certainly left me leary of modern psychology. I honestly felt the researches gave more importance to their research and data, then they did the mental health of the participants.

Response from firefly:

Thank you for this. As you indicated, this is a perfect example of elevating the '-ology' above the 'psych-' and also of the consequences of applying the -ology without psychological acumen or, for that matter, sensibility. But once they have completed their research, it will be honored as a polished product of scientific inquiry, published, and used to earn the investigators their career miletones. They have designed a study that cannot feasibly be implemented on a sample of persons with true PTSD like yourself and I'd be curious to know whether they attempt to generalize their findings to the 'PTSD population' without qualifying limits. I am not sure how much thought they put into the design of this research. It would be sad if the design is the product of considerable thinking, but it appears as if their thinking (again, if any was exercised) was done completely inside the box, as the expression goes. Their procedure strings together a series of standard, or 'stock,' practices (e.g., having a client produce a piece of written material; measuring physiological reactions [GSR, SCR] to participants subjected to a stimulus). It smacks of a senior thesis project or worse, something 4 sophomores threw together for presentation to their experimental design class. I cannot speak intelligently about their motives or state of mind, but I do know that some researchers, having only a hammer, treat every participant like a nail. Of a research design they may have required certain elements, like ingredients in a recipe for a publishable paper. Moreover, though I am not sure I know all the details, I am inclined to doubt that this research could have yielded any worthwhile discoveries or insights. The problem with much of this research is its lack of originality. The literature contains quite a number of studies as it is comparing the efficacy of a behavioral intervention with some pharmacologic agent. A great many of these studies actually compare the same drug with the same intervention, varying some minor aspect like the control group or the dosage or the duration. If this is the case here, it is not entirely without its merits, but it is not worth risking your emotional stability and well-being. There are some noble researchers out there, but it seems that for every one of these, there are a dozen who are simply canvassing the literature in a particular area looking for some hole to fill. In fact, we are encouraged to do this, and this kind of research is favored over original research (or to be more accurate, it is more likely to appeal to the lowest common denominator of an editorial review committee). So in effect, what we have is a system in which 50 researchers leach off an original (or in some cases, seminal but not original) work, safely reproducing most of the elements of the original work (which have already been evaluated as scientifically meritorious and error-free). This is the safe and fast-track to a career in this field. Again, it is not the worst thing in the world, and I would not call it illegitimate. But I shutter to think of the more intelligent or original research (in many cases by individuals with creativity and wit who do not need funding, fancy instruments, or to make PTSD sufferers relive their worst memories).

Thanks again for sharing this with us.

* * *

Your article "ADHD Science" is interesting but a little long on rhetoric. You might want to include some specific examples to back up your case.

"What kind of data will be most likely to shed light on my question?"

"In my 'dreams of cancer patients research,' I began with the assumption that not much of anything is known about dreams. I admitted ignorance, reveled in the mystery, and embraced the prospect of discovery."

You must have had more of a basic assumption than that or you wouldnt have chosen to study the dreams of cancer patients. You might have speculated that cancer patients dreams are different from healthy people's dreams, for example.

"In what amounts to the industrialization and bureaucratization of knowledge, behavioral fragments are mined like coal from the walls of General Psychology classrooms and dumped en masse into a furnace where it is melted and forged into conclusions by sloppy, biased, and opportunistic thinking."

You should be happy about this. If everyone else is doing meaningless, sloppy and flawed work, then you have no real competetion. You can go out and do the real studies, and make meaningful discoveries without even having to worry that someone else will beat you to it.

Conversely, you could also make a career out of pointng out the flaws in other people's work. The thing about science is, if someone does a study that is flawed, you can actually prove them wrong.

You offer no evidence that highly rigorous and scientific studies are excluded. You offer no evidence that proof of flawed studies is ignored.

You dont offer evidence of anything. Just opinion after opinion.

Response from firefly:

I suspect the evidence you desire would legitimize the prevailing model of science practiced within the field of psychology. To be fair, however, I should remark that we would need to agree on what constitutes evidence for my argument. It is obvious that you have placed the burden of evidence squarely on my shoulders, where admittedly it does belong, but allow me to suggest as well that I am assailing the field of psychology for comparable evidentiary problems. Psychology departments, with its throngs of researchers adhering over many decades to these gilded norms, failed to build a body of knowledge of appreciable mass or weight around the psychologistic phenomena to which its very prefix 'psych-' commits it.

In light of the marginalization and distortion of the sine qua non of psychology, I reviewed the norms that govern the day-to-day operations of research as well as the requirements for a career in psychology and determined that logic alone is sufficient to establish that these norms exert pressures that work against an adequate and freewheeling exploration of the human condition. Bare in mind, and this should be patently obvious from my ADHD Science essay, that I am not criticizing researchers for lacking rigor or commitment to science if we define rigor as a hyperactive observance and perfectionist deployment of design principles and statistical techniques and if we define science as a set of stock paradigmatic methodologies consistent with a framework of expectations established to facilitate communication and integration among colleagues. The field does not need me to point out the sporadic instances in which the scientific standards that define professionalism are not satisfied. I am here to point out the vital functions sacrificed needlessly for the sake of professional development, and I am here to point out the deficiencies (i.e., conceptual sophistication, scope and depth of data collection, emic tradition that preserves the individual as the unit of analysis) and the excesses (i.e., superfluous norms like the null hypothesis testing system that constrain independent thinking and subvert intellectual freedom, personal growth, and the integrity of the subject matter to professional development, cosmetic persona, and self-serving careerism) which are instances in which the paradigm routinely breaks from essential science.

There are many in the field who would point to my discourse and say, 'this does not conform to standard scientific practices.' In other words, they would dismiss an argument against their methodology by pointing out that the argument fdoes not conform to their methodological rules. They will only invite me to the debate if I am willing to debate on their own terms and in their own discourse.

As you mentioned, the memo is already long. I have found the rhetoric absolutely necessary in framing the issues as well as in fleshing out the scope of the problem with respect to significance and implications. It has proven a vital component of my strategy and has worked well in identifying and rallying my social base to support the campaign. There will always be time for details. I suspect that in my extended book tour such details or examples may be solicited. In such academic circles, I might hold up an article as typical and then dissect it, providing an illustrated road map to its deficiencies and its excesses.

<>

This is technically and obviously true. The research itself is evidence of that at some broad level, there is at least an implicit theory and orientation at work. But I still worked on an assumption of ignorance because such an assumption facilitates the selection and implementation of fluid, flexible, and exploratory methodologies. To quibble over the issue as to whether I knew anything at all prior to the design of the research is to miss the point entirely. I think this re-direct is emblematic of the kind of thinking in the field that loses the forest through the trees. I am begging you to examine the Big Picture here. As long as you are concerned with the trees and me the forest, we will never be able to carry on any kind of conversation.

<>

As you keenly noted here, this has been quite a compensation. And I would not expect any 'discoveries' within this culture and paradigm ("current regime," if you will) whether it lasts 10, 100, or 1,000 more years.

<>

Yes, but as I mentioned earlier, if only you agree to debate on their own terms will they even entertain your objections. This is the caveat. The objections I am raising are not of the variety that 'Oh, you're missing a true control group,' 'you ran so many tests as to risk alpha errors,' or 'your ANCOVA, as a statistical correction for confounding variables, is not as effective an a priori experimental blocks design.' There are enough people in the field to point out the problems caused by insufficient professional development or training. I am here to point out what we are sacrificing when we elevate professional standing to supreme principle. I am arguing against the null hypothesis testing system, against the lack of an emic tradition, against methodologies that do not preserve the integrity of the individual as a unit of analysis. Those inside the field already know what the norms are. I do not need to point these out to them, hold them up, and say, gottcha! Thus my argument is a logical or conceptual one. Of course, with the publication of my book, I will transition to a public audience, where I it may be useful on occasion to hold up a piece of research as prototypical and then dissect it.

<>

Science, as they have conceived it (i.e., a series of technical steps), is something they have observed. It is my contention that they are missing some key steps that pertain to conceptual development and, even more damning, the representation of facts in data. People in this field typically confound theory and hypothesis, theory and method, facts and data, and even method and data, which tells me they are poor philosophers of science.

* * *

(This comes from a former psychology major)

I have to agree with some of his points here...Some of my colleges were "creating" subjects to skew thier data on studies to make it go well so they would have a better chance at getting accepted into programs.. Profs were more concerned withthe "look" rather than the desire to actually understand human behavior.Thanks for the link. He points out some of the reasons I will not return to the career when My kids are grown. I have not gotten to all of it.. but pretty good so far.

* * *

(This comes from a psychology major at The George Washington University)

Greetings,

After browsing your web site and failing to locate any specific negative allegations against the field of psychology, I am slightly offended. Yes, I am a psychology major, and I will eventually receive a doctorate specializing in animal behavior. You see, I love and adore animals. I love and adore people. And I understand that there are relatively "bad" people and relatively "good" people. I have understood this since early elementary school at least. I accept that there are individuals who abuse psychology for their own twisted purposes. These individuals are of the minority population, though, and do not reflect the views of the field as a whole. What you are implying about the field of psychology is analogous to the following reasoning: Muslims attacked our country and hurt many citizens, so all Muslims are bad. Or, one might say with the same reasoning that all caucasions are bad because Jeffrey Dahmer was bad. This exact reasoning could be used for absolutely any group of people. So as you begin your campaign against the evil in psychology, keep in mind that what one individual does is not necessarily reflective of the group.

P.S.- Also remember the varying viewpoints within psychology itself, such as the learning vs. the biological approach. I personally do not believe in the theory of evolution, even though many upper-psychology level courses utilize it as part of the curriculum. I understand that most likely the majority of psychologists view evolution as valid, but this does not affect my level of enthusiasm for psychology or cause me to discredit what every evolution-minded psychologist says. This would be ignorant, foolish, and prejudiced of me.

Response from firefly:

I disagree with the statement that I cite no specific problems with psychology. I suspect that by specific allegations, you seem to think that a preponderance of evidence of illicit (illegal or unethical) behaviors is required to justify a critique of psychology. You may be too young to understand that a scientific discipline (and a mental health delivery system) such as psychology can be criticized on other grounds. Just because psychology professors do not hoarde stockpiles of sarin does not mean they are beyond reproach. My case against psychology consists of a sociological analysis of norms that govern the day-to-day operations of psychology's educators, researchers, and practitioners, norms which have the full support of those who call themselves psychologists or psychology professors but which I argue are (1) prejudiced against certain types of subject matter, (2) counterproductive to an adequate exploration of of the human condition, and (3) dehumanizing of their students in general (and especially those who align themselves with certain theorists or claim certain phenomena as their research interest). When you claim in your condescending tone that you have known since grade school that the world consists of both good and bad individuals, you clearly want to assume that my argument is a bitter response to no more than a single person or experience. The fact of the matter is that my argument is based on anecdotal evidence consisting of experiences across nine colleges and universities and is based on my familiarity with the norms governing the day-to-day operations of the field. (I do have a PhD in social psychology). Critics like yourself attempt to cast doubt on the validity of my argument by attempting to lure me into the rather ambiguous task of estimating the number or percentage of professors worthy of my criticism. When it appears I have no basis for assigning a definitive number (no empirical research or sample of anecdotes representative of a population of of professors that numbers in the tens of thousands), then my argument can be dismissed or denied. However, it is my contention that the actual number is not necessary to justify the argument. I need only claim "too many" professors, defined here as enough to create and maintain the current state of affairs, as sufficient basis for my argument. I need only shed light on the state of affairs so that it becomes obvious that such an establishment cannot exist without the complicity of a large number of academics and/or professionals. I will also not be drawn into an argument as to whether psychology professors are "evil" and of what "evil" consists. It does not take a theologist to see the misguidedness in psychology departments. I have known, oh let's say since the third grade, that there are all sorts of grey area between good and evil, but more importantly I know this dimension itself (morality) is not even relevant to this discussion.

I am pleased to hear that you love animals. I have a pet myself but I would never pretend that such an affection qualifies me to be a psychology professor. Perhaps you should look into zoology or veterinary medicine. But it is not your fault that graduate programs in psychology allocate resources and positions to graduate students and faculty interested in animal behavior.

You should also know that, like you, I do not discredit a field because it maintains a forum for others with different perspectives (of human nature). If you possess basic comprehension skills, than a less desultory or cursory review of my web site would reveal that it is the current regime within psychology that has targeted individuals like myself for extreme prejudice. I have been calling for a diversity of views, and this includes subject matter and some norms disingenuously presented as non-negotiable (e.g., methodology). If you sampled the research interests of professors, you would find certain phenomena critical to psychology under-represented (e.g. dreams). The only explanation for this is a systemic prejudice by the norms. But above and beyond this, I also contend that this prejudice also resides within many individual professors. "How many?" you ask. "Too many."

* * *

(This comes from a doctoral student at Indiana University of Pennsylvania).

Dr. Ehrenfels,

I very much enjoyed your e-mail! I am currently a graduate student in clinical psychology and am extremely fed up with the politics of the department, university, and field in general. I feel that they "trap" those of us who actually make it into a doctoral program by not letting us in on various requirements of the field until we feel it is too late to turn back and make a more rational career decision. I however, have decided to take my losses and run, so I can have a "normal" life, and a reasonably satisfying career, serving clients rather than serving the profession. Thank you for letting all of us know we are not alone in feeling this crap is just that!!

* * *

(This comes from a psychology major at the University of New Mexico)

You stupid fuck.

* * *

Thank you for sending this to my group (Anti-psychiatry). This group will probably be the most receptive to your ideas, as we already are aware of some of the fallacies of Psychology and Psychiatry. My areas of interest are more focused in Psychiatry (treatment practices, i.e. medicalization) and I must admit that I was unaware of the some of the practices you mentioned regarding Psychology education. I am currently an undergraduate student - I will have my B.A. in Psychology and Sociology in May. However, I plan to pursue post-bac education in Sociology only.

I will check your website periodically for new information. Again, best wishes to you, and if you need any assistance in the the Indianapolis, Indiana area please let me know.

* * *

J. Wyatt Ehrenfels,

You indeed seem to set a new agenda for modern man--psychologically, socially and thus politically. And you do it with such intellectual authority which none can basically refute. I can only salute your boldness in doing something worthy of humanity that was otherwise long overdue.

In wishing you success, I wish success for the whole mankind.

* * *

(This comes from someone who graduated with a major in psychology)

I have to agree with some of his points here...Some of my colleges were " creating" subjects to skew their data on studies to make it go well so they would have a better chance at getting accepted into programs...Profs were more concerned with the "look" rather than the desire to actually understand human behavior. Thanks for the link. He points out some of the reasons I will not return to the career when My kids are grown. I have not gotten to all of it... but pretty good so far.

* * *

(This comes from a psychology professor who was fired after 7 years)

You're cooking. Put me on your mailing list, if you have one, would you? At the very least, its good therapy for me. I hear from lots of my students at [UNIVERSITY OMITTED] since I was fired but the faculty, as per the faculty you describe from your experiences. Cower in fear? Apathy?...dunno really. Lazy? Hard to say. I basically do not get some sets of people apathy when it is obvious that things that are very important to them are at stake. I think like you say that it has to do with group think. Your ideas on this would be great. thanks.

* * *

(This comes from the moderator of an APA Psychology listserv)

I'd like to ask that you please be careful and do not use the lists to promote your book or your Web site (as this is a violation of list policy). If you are an APAGS member, and I trust that you are, please be sure that you use (and continue to use) the APAGS lists as they were intended (which is to obtain support, talk about issues, share your opinions, and get information that contributes to the spirit of the list, which is open and respectful dialogue among graduate students of psychology). Many people have contacted me off the list to tell me that they are offended by some of your posts (some have said that your contributions are "way out there" and "off base.") However, you are entitled to your opinions and your experiences. You may want to precede your comments by explicitly stating that what you are writing are "your opinions and your personal experiences and evaluations."

Response from firefly:

[NAME OF LISTSERVE MODERATOR OMITTED],

With the exception of three recent posts, I have been inactive since September. I have not so much as mentioned my book or web site, and with the exception of one oversight, I have even been manually deleting the link to my web site from my signature field.

But it very much disturbs me that you would apprise me of complaints that my contributions are "way out there," not that I can pretend to grasp the meaning of this obscure phrase.

I am an individual, and as such, some of my opinions will occasionally diverge from those of other individuals. But it is clear to me that my recent posts, all of which pertain to the issues of disabilities, have not only been relevant but have resonated with active participants in this forum.

I hope you will indulge me when I request that you characterize the nature of the complaints, as I am at a loss. Without knowing the nature of the complaints, I am prone to certain assumptions concerning the emotional maturity and stability of those in which the complaints originated. Naturally, I would like to avoid any misunderstandings and false impressions of the sensitivity and intolerance which may or may not have been exhibited. In some cases, I ask you to allow for the possibility that those who would charge me with being "out of orbit" are themselves "off axis."

Sincerely,

J. Wyatt Ehrenfels

* * *

(This comes from an undergraduate at a university in Oklahoma who received an invitation to join the Shadow Psychology discussion group)

Oh, okay, so you are a real person. I'm still not sure how you got my name, but I like the case you are presenting. Unfortunately, I don't know any psychology majors, but if I meet one I will certainly pass it on. I respect what you are doing. Not too many people want to stand up about career issues.

Best of luck to you.

* * *

(This comes from a health care service delivery professional who responded on a psychotherapist-in-training listserv to Ehrenfels, who complimented her for a remark he described as "strangely intelligent" and "refreshing")

The remark in question was a response to another listmember questioning Ehrenfels's activity on the listserv: "Admittedly, I may be misreading what's posted on the website, but I suspect he's trying to effect change from within...get the impressionable youngsters before they calcify."

After Ehrenfels's complimented her, she had this to say.

That's because I'm NOT a psychotherapist. I'm the psychological equivalent of a trench grunt ... or perhaps paramedic is a better analogy.

I'm a commitment officer and hotline counsellor. I deal directly with people who are in acute crisis, and have some special skills related to that ... a lot of professionals just can't deal with a client in crisis and pass them off to facilities like mine.

I'm not saying that people don't need hospitalization, or don't need crisis services, they absolutely do!

But I've seen docs drop patients like hot potatoes when the dreaded "S" word hits the table as an actuality rather than an intellectual possibility or exercise.

I've also seen psychologists and psychiatrists engage in behavior that I would consider at the least stupid, at worst unethical ... like the one lady who not twice BUT THREE TIMES (yes, same patient, same doctor, same set of instructions of ... "this is what you need to do when she does this") sent her suicidal patient home --- after the patient displayed deep abdominal lacerations to the doc in her office ... never occured to the doc to call police, to get client to an ER, or, incidentally, to deal with this situation immediately. She saw this pt. in the early afternoon and approached the commitment office after she'd finished seeing the rest of her patients. She came in to file the commitment papers around 10:00 that night ... never occured to her to have police make a welfare check, either.

There are a lot of stupid, pretentious people in psychology. Okay, perhaps many of them are bright and pretentious. (yes, on this list too ... hint: if the word "deconstruct" is in your vocabulary, you're pretentious. Work on it) I'm not sure where the field as a whole is going ... hopefully not to hell in a handbasket.

While science is important, I am firmly convinced that psychology is an art, NOT a science.

I've just been on this list since grad school, and the listowner said I could continue to hang around.

* * *

(This comes from a psychology major at a school in Southern Mississippi who participates in a listserv)

Dear Sir, I attend the school psychology program at the [NAME OF SCHOOL OMITTED]. In talking with my professors, I talked to them just generally about what was discussed in your emails. They believed most of it to be false, and kind of a 'sour grapes' attitude from what I gathered... We didn't discuss things at length, and I don't think they had read all of the original posting...

Response from firefly:

Hello [NAME OMITTED]: Thank you for being candid. Yeah, the most typical response is a defensive posture in which they make that claim, often dismissing my work as the 'roman a clef of a nom de plum.' I have figured out a clue students could use to help determine whether their professors are being disingenuous in dismissing me out of hand or whether their dismissal is the result of an honest disagreement.

1. Did they offer an opinion without reading the memo?

2. Do they refuse to concede the facts concerning the odds and obstacles of admission to graduate school?

The second one is important. I put it in there so it would serve a role similar to that of the lie scales on an MMPI. It would be politically savvy and morally responsible of them to admit to more than a kernel of truth in that point. It does not compromise their position by which it means that it does not reflect poorly on their norms for research and teaching. Yet from what I could tell, many professors are doing their students (students responsible enough to act on the information I provided) a disservice by refusing to dignify even these facts with any kind of a response. I suspect they fear that if they acknowledge even one element of my argument that they will open their students minds to the balance of my critique. Whatever the reason, they risk a backlash from disgruntled graduates down the road. As for the sour grapes critique, even if this were an accurate characterization of my impetus, it would not invalidate my critique. There are some rather disgruntled people in the world who speak the truth. Just ask a rape victim.

Your faculty needs to address the critique logically rather than dismiss it like they do the validity of subjects of greatest interest to me (e.g., dreams). I never did attempt to apply for a tenure-track assistant professorship, because I realized that had I even been successful in this saturated market, my work would have been skewed by requirements for tenure. And I knew that I could never write this book as an employee of a university, not without jeopardizing my career. I would have sacrificed everything for that university position. So much in fact, that all I would have had left was the position itself. Why after working so hard to betray my own values and vocation would I sacrifice my prize for a book? I had to make my choice years ago. Even before the PhD was conferred, I knew the pursuit of employment in academia to have been pointless on so many levels.

* * *

(This comes from an undergraduate a state university in Colorado)

Hello Dr. Ehrenfels,

I just wanted to share w/you that I have read your strategy statement posted on www.fireflySun.com and I very much appreciate the "heads up." Seldom does one find such a truthful approach to the process of applying to graduate school for the purpose of studying psychology.

I have recently sent off several applications to various departments of Social Psychology, and I feel fortunate that I had been given the good advice to establish a relationship with a faculty member early. I hope that the sound advice you have posted here will be followed by other students interested in gaining admission into graduate school.

Thank you again, and wish me luck!

MORE MAIL

BACK TO fireflySUN.com PSYCHOLOGY NEWS