Locusts on Capitol Hill:

How the Public Policy Advocacy Network of American Psychological Association (APA) Swarms Legislators

Wyatt Ehrenfels Quick to Respond

The above "policy action alert" from the advocacy network omitted specific information about the targeted research and the nature of the opposition. Furthermore, the Public Policy Office fails to clarify how the Amendment is a threat to peer review. At this point, I am not questionning the merits of the APA position, but I am questionning the motives and the methods. The mass e-mail is somewhat insulting to its membership. While members of the APA listserv "SPIN" may be reasonably regarded as a captive audience, it was inappropriate for the policy office to treat members of other APA listserves as political livestock. The science advisor took for granted the support of thousands of APA members he attempted to mobilize by pandering to their fears and appealing to their worst motives. I really think the science advisor assumed he could throw a switch and have thousands of psychologists jamming congressional switchboards. The office did not respect its professionals enough to provide them with the information they needed to make an informed decision and develop a complete argument. In actuality the office believed it needed to recast the Toomey Amendment as a threat to peer review to secure the sympathies of its members and metabolize this molecular cloud of sympathy into activism on a planetary scale.

A Threat to Peer Review?

Did the policy office really need to depict the Toomey Amendment as a threat to peer review to stoke member opposition? I doubt it. Many psychologists fit one conservative group leader's description of the NIH sex research: "smarmy and prurient." The 2002 Washington State psychologist convention revolved around the theme of raising awareness and tolerance for client paraphilias. Having sat through this convention, an associate of mine recounted how the presenters appeared to enjoy divulging all this unconventional sex in neauseating detail, describing in one instance how sexual satisfaction is achieved by inserting needles up through the tip of the penis. The associate recounted how she endured a party atmosphere inhospitable to her level of discomfort, which she concealed amidst an air of unqualified support, self-contentment, and vicarious thrill. "They love their kinky sex symposia in Washington State," she remarked. A local university even hosted a special additional graduation ceremony for gay & lesbian students, where I eavesdropped on circles of whispers bearing complaints about discrimination. I confess to being bemused because no employer needs to know anyone's sexual orientation. I cannot help but think things would go more smoothly for people who keep their sex lives to themselves. I wish I had the option of hiding the reason for my own discrimination; but unfortunately, psychologists need to know my interest in dream research and my penchant for designing (original) methodologies required to survey this pioneer territory. I would have probably succeeded in carving a niche for myself in this field if only psychologists have shown me a fraction of the "tolerance" they "reserve" for various classes of sexual minorities. I put those words in quotes because this celebration and evangelism is anything but "reserved tolerance."

I cannot muster the party repugnance for the Toomey Amendment inasmuch as psychologists are invoking peer review as red herring. If peer review was in fact effective and fair, NIH would spread its funding across a broader spectrum of psychologistic phenomena to include research that does not use arbitrary DSM diagnostic categories as variables. The DSM has created a wealth of minority groups based on arbitrary classifications of psychopathology (e.g., people with "social phobia" or people with "major depression") which in turn has spawned classes of specialists deploying manualized treatments specific to a disorder which in turn has spawned advocacy groups (e.g. The Anxiety Disorders Association of America). Are we going to allow the American Psychological Association to gerrymander the landscape of psychological experience with its arbitrary DSM diagnostic labels? What's next? Does the ADAA lobby NIH for funding for anxiety disorders? Do university positions go to researchers who pander to these political lobbies by seeking NIH grants to study these DSM-gerrymandered groups? I say "enough" to funding research into "300.02 Generalized Anxiety Disorder" and let's study anxiety. I say we find a place in the field of clinical research for individuals whose research interests do not have coordinates on the Diagnostic and Statistical map of psychopathology. For all this manuevering and posturing, the DSM provides only an indexical status to phobias, fetishes, and nightmares, even less insight into the individual dream, and even less interest yet in how these various elements might be related within the self-regulatory system known as the human psyche, as human experience, or as the individual. While there are some good psychologists who would not treat their clients as instantiations of DSM diagnostic categories, this is in effect what we do when we allow a canonized classification of disorders to drive, organize, and conceptualize "clinical research" and clinical research funding.

More on the APA Policy Office

Of course, the anti-Toomey Amendment solicitation is designed to coax relatively uninterested or time-constrained professionals to make a contribution with a minimum of effort (i.e., the solicitation hands them a script). The policy network listserv is a delivery device by which the APA leadership harvests the affiliation of its members with the APA and, more broadly, with the Democratic party. The network has mechanized the process by which sympathy, sensibility, and affiliation is "transduced" into support and psychologists and psych profs transformed into casual lobbyists. You don't believe me? Get a load of the following solicitation delivered across APA member and student listserves:

The Economy of Esteem in Psychology: Inflation

But when you get down to it, the mechanization does not account fully for my feeling that this gesture has made a caricature of this class of professionals. In addition to the mechanization, the public policy office adds entitlement and oversensitivity. These are the qualities that make a spoiled brat. We do not have to read too deeply between the lines of this solicitation to recognize the imagined sleight. I am always wary of claims that this or that "sets a dangerous precedent." Translation: "if we give them an inch, they will most definitely take a mile." There is a complex at work in these APA officials that is triggered by anything captured on their radar. They react ballisticly, without regard to the specific features and ramifications of the blip on their screen. They can only stand to benefit by withholding details from their members, taking advantage of their deindividuation of the alleged threats. They behave as if they were taking preventitive measures to insure Psychology stock does not decline on the day. But at the end of the day, what is really apparent is the inflation: the belief that everything is a referendum on them or has ramifications for them. If the Toomey Amendment is any indication, psychologists will never be adversely affected by any legislation ever, and will live perpetually like a child on the brink of the terrible twos.

Now I have no philosophical objections to the research targeted by the Toomey Amendment. What I do object to, however, is that no member of the APA has considered that while the research may be valid and possibly even important, that there are circumstances under which taxpayer funding for research may not be considered sacrosanct. Psychology professionals and academics do not live in the world at large and do not have to endure the fluctuations in the labor market and broader economy. By and large, they are fortunate enough to enjoy a rare job security and are insulated from the economic and labor market woes endured by a growing proportion of the U.S. population. In the world at large, difficult decisions have to made. But it would seem that whenever any threat of any kind to funding of psychological research presents itself, we are all urged to oppose what is often vilified as ideological or ignorant misconduct on the part of our politicians. It usually begins with someone getting personally insulted when an institution with which they identify (e.g., NIH) is susceptible to financial pressures or restructuring. The APA presents the action as an assault on its sophisticated ideology and intelligence.

Even if ideological objections are raised to the research, the fact of the matter is that in a budget crisis following a period in which government spending cannot keep pace with revenue, science and education lose some initiatives. It has to come from somewhere. Have psychologists considered the possibility that, having been successful in helping to narrowly defeat the Toomey Amendment, that Congress may take more money out of school lunches or funding for AIDS initiatives? The APA would appear to care less about these issues, because it does not fall within the jurisdiction of a psychological association. But as long as they are spreading their tentacles (or expanding their radar) to encompass science of a non-psychological nature (i.e. NIH), shouldn't it similarly consider the range of possible consequences of their lobbying?

I happen to think dream research is very important, but I live in the real world; I understand dream research does not appeal to funding sources; I design research that does not depend on funding; and I live with the fact my career may suffer because my CV lacks references to relationships with granting agencies. When I raised this point, a psychologist was quick to brandish the point that his review of the CRISP database revealed that dream research is not among the research targeted for sanctions. But when I asked him to review the database to ascertain whether the government funds any dream research, I received no reply.

Not being a college professor, I live in a world affected by the state of the economy. This is a world of sacrifices and compromises. Psychologists do not live in this world, where there will always be a univesity paycheck or a paycheck from an insurance provider.

The sexual arousal research is important, but does not warrant the lockbox defense waged by the APA. Psychologists will look foolish and mechanistic in their imagined sleight (their "how dare they?!" attitude) and desensitize Congressional representatives to their concerns. They should worry that if they are not more discriminating in their lobbying (i.e., restricting their lobbying to issues like parity and reciprocity), they will ultimately acquire a reputation as a lobby. In all likelihood, members of Congress will become inured to their concerns. So before they tie up congressional phone and e-mail, they ought to consider whether this or comparable research can be performed at lower cost (or through an alternative source of funding). This is government research funded by tax dollars. It's not their money. Psychologists and psychology professors are quite skilled in grant writing. (Cynics can be forgiven for arguing that grant-seeking and CV building account for 90% of psychology's gross national product). Sexual conduct is important, yes, but so are a million other things that would never get funded (or whose funding is scaled back in a budget crunch).

Threat to Peer Review or the Sovereignity of Science

Many psychologists have opined that this action by Toomey gives politicians control of research review. This is another instance of inflation. The Toomey Amendment is an ad hoc decision and, even if motivated in part by an ideological opposition to the nature of the research, is only tenable on the grounds of financial exigency. Psychologists act as if passing of the Toomey Amendment would replace scientific review boards with political review boards. This is not a threat. Having said this, however, I do have objections to peer review and to peer review by committees comprised solely of scientists. This is one of those facts of life no one ever questions, but if you'll give me a moment...

...I'll entertain the question: are scientists the best judges of practical value and applications? We seem myopic, if not prejudiced, with respect to this, meaning we want instant gratification from research with a "face pragmatism." Any unctuous research donning the airs of social import or cosmetic science (e.g., the white coats, lab access, and hardware associated with research into that organ which can be touched [brain]) would have an unassailable advantage if our peers were judge and jury of funding allocation. No one but physiological psychologists, human factors engineers (working on how to build a better spatula), and social psychologists conducting policy analysis studies of diversity programs would receive funding and the departments would consequently change with respect to its membership (and subsequently the science itself would be replaced by a metaphysical materialism and social activism). Because dream research lacks a face pragmatism and does not lend itself to conventional or cosmetic paradigms, my CV can never connect me to any money, a necessity these days (and most likely for decades to come) in the search for university employment.

Basic research with long-term practical potential can be more invaluable than mindless, sloppy, or meaningless brain research, as in the case of my exploratory research into the role of dreaming in cancer coping and health diagnostics. There was no reason for anyone to believe I would find anything; fortunately, I did not require funding (and there is a great deal of funded psychological research out there that could do without [only the researchers can't seem to do without it, so they design research that justifies the requisition of funding]).

Peer review has destructive as well as beneficial aspects. As the number of members on the committee increases, and the nature of the members narrows (and also depending on the decision rules [e.g., unanimity or majority]), the greater the pressure on the researcher to pander to the lowest common denominator of a committee (or conversely, to a homogeneous committee). If my life depended on committee approval, I probably wouldn't be alive today. But this is how careers are won and lost in this field, by the ability of the suitor to survive a number of competetive checkpoints at which a committee decision is made as to who (or whose research) is the most "profitable," "pragmatic," or the most "perfect fit" (i.e., embodies the epistemology of the profession or prevailing paradigm or department philosophy). This sociological aspect of our culture has cost our science dearly. Where publication is concerned I don't believe in gatekeeping by peer review AT THE FRONT END. You would think that with our web technology, we could design a system in which all research by credentialed authors is published and perhaps later tagged with peer reviews and ratings (not unlike an online bookstore). If we were truly the community (and the productive one) we think we are, we would make all our research available and reviewable online (as through the use of version control software), but we do not want this. We speak of publication standards as protecting the public interest, but our dirty little secret is that our publication standards afford us a far greater social benefit. It gives us an expedient and clear means of sorting applicants into piles, rating and regulating eligibility for career milestones. It gives us a means of controlling the conduct of our colleagues and managing the content of our field. Too bad that in the process, our practices oppress minority interests, methods, and points of view and disenfranchises legitimate research that simply win, place, or show at what amounts to a popularity pageant. Where funding is concerned (tax payer money), I think the best committee ideally would consist of a mix of insiders and outsiders. While scientists are the best judges of technical fidelity in any research study, they are no better (and perhaps even at a disadvantage) at judging the practical worth or interest of the research. In the very least, an outside presence would keep us honest.

Stay out of the Path of the APA Storm

Over the course of months I scattered muses about the torrent of tornado nightmares I experienced as a graduate student in Psychology. Having been a graduate student in multiple psychology programs ("move over, storm chasers"), I learned to expect within hours of the dream some threat or recrimination, delivered formally by letter or personally in a closed door castigation, stemming from some manner in which I behaved unconventionally or failed to behave in accordance with expectations. Just as tornadoes can take numerous forms (your "wedge," "rope," and "classic funnel" twisters), the ways I could deviate from expectations far outnumbered the deviations I could imagine...or predict. Even after a tornado dream warned me that a dizzying imbroglio was imminent, I was just as unable to anticipate the source of the "storm" as I am to anticipate the when and the where of a twister in a tornado watchbox. But the variety of storm shapes and sizes is really beside the point, the point being that you do not want to be caught in the path of a professor's peeve, penchant, or political peccadillo. In a nutshell, the moment a psychologist gets it in his or her head that this is appropriate or right, it becomes your business to know and to conform to that value. The consequences for failing to do so may include heavy rain, wind gusts in excess of 200 mph, withdrawl from your doctoral program, large hail...

Profile of Common Storms

• ......Theory. This is the rope tornado. These tornadoes are so gaunt as to appear harmless. But they cause some of the most severe damage known to careers. Do not include "Jungian" or "dream researcher" among the list of self-descriptive adjectives you provide during the "tell me a little about yourself" section of orientation. Some closet behaviorist on faculty may be taking notes. More broadly, beat down the urge to align yourself with any school of thought or identify your focus of research. It's not like any one else really wants to know anyway. You'd be better off steering clear of Psychology in your introductions to the faculty at large by referring to yourself as, well, anything from a "Buffy enthusiast" to a "good square dancer." Personally, I recommend "para-sailing." It shows you have an active life outside Psychology, which for some reason is very important to most clinical psychologists, who regard it as a prerequisite for mental health. What does that tell you? But most importantly, it's a hobby in which no one else, well, let's just say you won't have to worry about other students or profs requesting to join you, which brings me to my next storm.
  

• ......Participation. There is no such thing as a "request" or even a "suggestion." When a psych prof "suggests" you do something, especially when he or she "has a suggestion for you" in those words, you take it as you would any standing order from a drill sergeant. Choice of the word "suggest" is symptomatic of an attempt at managing an impression as a populist ("I'm a good guy, man of the people") and benevolent deity ("God of the New [most modern] Testament") as well as being symptomatic of the time-tested expectation that you will throw yourself on the suggestion like a selfless soldier on a live grenade.
  

  This is the tornado you don't see because a dry, windy day produced a funnel with relatively little condensed vapor near the ground. In another, less metaphorical way, you don't see this tornado because it's rooted in deception and lack of communication. There is a lot of hard policy and procedures that live between the lines of anything written in a department handbook (even one written to resemble a Department of Defense Operations Manual). When the department head goes out of his way to let you know attendance at weekly colloquia is not mandatory, what he really means is that it is an opportunity to prove your devotion to the department. More often than not, the faculty are noting who's been naughty (not attending) and who's been nice, and come Christmas, you can find more than a few lumps of coal in your stocking. Just remember that if they had required attendance, they would have had no way of knowing for sure who is a team player and who is not. Some may call this 'entrapment.' But as far as meteorology is concerned, it's as ingrained a feature in the program climate as barometric pressure. Also, pay your graduate student association dues, even before your electric bill, no matter how little interest you have in this straw authority, no matter how little interest you have in the golf outings, and how little interest you have in watching the pet rat walk a tightrope for the department talent show. They want to know you like them. If you don't communicate to them that you view yourself as fitting in, they will most likely decide you don't fit in. And this includes letting them know how much interest you take in your professional development. You need to appear to be looking into joining extracurricular research teams in the hopes of becoming the sixth author on as many four-page publications as possible. I don't care how frivolous the research, how much it may wreak havoc with your thesis schedule, or how meaningless a role you play in the research. Pain heals. Chicks dig scars. And most grad students do not defend their thesis inside four years (or their dissertation in seven).
  

• .......Politics. This conflict produces the classic funnel tornado. You'll know the damage when you see it! When a professor asks you why he did not see you at the election day poll he worked just outside your neighborhood, adding "we really could have used you," just say you cast an absentee ballot for you prior state of residence and leave it at that! For crying out loud, do not imply you may not have voted Democratic!
  

• ......Personality. This is the wedge tornado, because to violate this law of thermodynamics is to invite a storm event with the widest path of destruction. Do not get personal with your work! Do not get any bright ideas! You may be excited about teaching for the first time. But make no mistake, it's not really your classroom. You are a trainee, and you represent the department by proxy. It would help to think of yourself as the terrycloth equivalent of your practicum supervisor, even if the practicum supervisor is a wire-mesh pedagogue at best. (You remember the Harry Harlow experiment). If your teaching practicum supervisor is a physiological psychologist, do not write a syllabus that allocates only one lecture to physiological psychology while allocating four to personality. I don't care how expendable the structure of the ear, do not forget to teach it and test it if it's in all the textbooks. Do not recommend a textbook other than the most recent edition of Myers that comes standard in the department. And under no circumstances should you, even in jest, suggest forgoing a textbook in favor of a packet of original readings! This all goes in your file! Similarly, abort any claim to creative control, even on projects you presume to be your own. Indulge your thesis advisor when he tells you to abandon the exploratory analyses you want to implement in favor of the usual lineup of t tests, ANOVAs, and correlations committee members can comprehend on little sleep and even less interest (in your research). And count yourself lucky your advisor did not require under the terms of your assistantship that you propose a thesis that advances his or her own research.
  

The strongest tornados are those characterized by the greatest difference in barometric pressure inside and outside the funnel. Just remember that if the policies, procedures, and prejudices are exerting strong pressure from outside you, and you do not feel that pressure, conditions are right for the development of an F-4 or F-5.

Like most tornado victims, I feel very unlucky for having found myself at any point along a path of destruction as narrow as it is potent...as potent as it is narrow. A guy just can't help but feel singled-out. And just like a tornado has an internal anatomy of suction zones and vortices wrapped within the exterior funnel cloud, so this political adversity is wrapped inside a charged climate of latent personality conflict & professional training. The 'leading event,' which packs a condensed punch of verbal abuse, is wrapped inside a wider thermodynamic system. You have the latent rising heat, the personality conflict, that dismissably dim sense that maybe some of the profs would not like you if they knew more about you. Listen to that voice inside you! And then, in the path of destruction behind the tornado, there is a protracted period of probation marked by sustained tension and vigilance. This is when you assess the damages and determine whether your standing in the program can be salvaged (or whether you will drag out the inevitable to the tune of insoluble loan debt). Just where was this tornado on the Fugita scale? Then you take stock of faculty expectations and monitor your behavior, molding it to those expectations. It's a skill not unlike hand-eye coordination. You just have to play a lot of ball to develop the skill.

In Conclusion

The true Neil Armstrongs of this field (or more accurately, the "would-be" Armstrongs) would describe progress in this field as "one small step forward for man, three giant steps backward for mankind." For each of the accomplishments which we scramble to list (and we are compiling quite a list of instances in which we've built a better spatula), there must be dozens of instances in which a psychology professor has done something counterprodutive to an adequate exploration of psychologistic phenomena or, in a manner analogous to professional abortion, done something violent to the budding vocation of a truly inspired or ascetic student.

As a social psychologist, it is my responsibility to survey and record the damage, and to align the student and public perception of our field with its reality. Sometimes in my criticism I stray into philosophy of science, sometimes into sociology of education, but because I have never lost sight of the sine qua non of Psychology, I can provide a chilling account of its loss.

As a social psychologist, I have been using Congress.org to coordinate my own outreach efforts, which is to say I have been reaching out to our legislators in an effort to persuade them that as a social psychologist I am qualified to opine on the merits, motives, and mechanisms of the American Psychological Association. This is a partisan knee-jerk reaction driven neither by thought nor by individual initiative and, in light of the method and motives, e-mails from professionals opposing the Toomey Amendment should not be treated as a convergence of independent and expert opinions. In my e-mail, I encourage legislators to call on me or my cadre of supporters to characterize the sociological forces that shaped Psychology into an academic and professional culture worthy of generalizations that cast doubt on its viability as a source of adequate research.

I lost and won on the Toomey Amendment. 212-210. My staff and I contacted dozens of representatives, and while we lost the overall vote, I think we cultivated relationships that will reverberate into the future. It is astonishing how much weight one voice of opposition carries when it is the voice of a social psychologist skeptical of his own field. I would advise the APA to be more discriminating in its lobbying from now on, or it will find itself periodically prone to larangytis. One thing is certain. The APA now has a natural adversary on Capitol Hill, and it looms much larger than Toomey.

fireflySun.com Report List

16 Points Memo: Wyatt Ehrenfels

16 Points Page: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Psychology Careers: Careers in Psychology Wyatt Ehrenfels

Adventure on APAGS listserv: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Cancer Research Appendices: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Cancer Research Discussion: Wyatt Ehrenfels

New APA Journal Gives Ground to Wyatt Ehrenfels: Wyatt Ehrenfels

EPPP Study Materials Reflect Field's Biases, Weaknesses: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Questions Frequently Asked of Wyatt Ehrenfels: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Uncovers Dishonest Hiring Practices at Gallup Organization: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Why Google Is Too Sleazy for the Street: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Psychology Impaired by Materialistic Bias: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Psychology Curriculum Reveals Humpty Dumpty: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Reveals Hidden Odds & Obstacles to Graduate Admission: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Cancer Research Introduction: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Overpowers UCLA Psychology Professor: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Brad Jesness Deals Counselors & Therapists Some Major Blows: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Cancer Research Methodology: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Brad Jesness FAQ Discredited: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Brad Jesness Deals Counselors & Therapists Some Major Blows: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Shows Solidarity for Kindred Critic Dennis Fox: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Cancer Research Results: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Psychologists Abuse Usenet to Stalk Its Critics: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Eludes Detection to Protect Key Allies: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Psychotherapist Scott Adams Offers Positive Commentary on Wyatt Ehrenfels memo: Scott Adams

Authors, Scholars Join Wyatt Ehrenfels: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Lays Out Two-Pronged Case against Dually Disordered Psychology: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Teams with Alice Andrews: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Teams with Psychotherapist Bill Arnott: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Doubling Down: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Gambles by Splitting Critique: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Authors, Scholars Unite to Support Wyatt Ehrenfels: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Teams with Dream Researcher Gail Bixler: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Exposes Our Fear of Exposure Therapy: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Interviews with Internal Correspondent: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Says Psychology Professors Suffer from Professional Analogue of Borderline Personality Disorder: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Student Defies Psychology Professor's Warning Not to Correspond with Wyatt Ehrenfels: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Chides Daniel Dennett for Evangelical Atheism in Psychology: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Argues Psychology Graduate Education Not Worth the Money: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Psychology Professors Acknowledge Student Complaints about Curriculum: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Answers Critics, Campaign of Diversionary Tactics: Wyatt Ehrenfels

American Psychological Association Denies Listserv Members Access to Wyatt Ehrenfels OKTV Broadcast Report: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Talks about the Dissertation Experience: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Discusses a Methodology for Dream Research: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Defends Dreaming from Psychologist Negative Thinking: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Urban E-Zine Entelechy Publishes Wyatt Ehrenfels Essay: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Defends Dream Research against Vaunted Psychology News Group Moderator: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Customizes Probe to Explore Dreaming-Waking Interface: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Teams with Kindred Critic Dennis Fox: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Teams with Psychotherapist Elio Frattaroli: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Teams with Political Scientist John Freie: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Teams with Biologist John Hewitt: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Shows Support for Embattled Psychology Graduate Student: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Counsels Students on True Callings: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Amuses with Proposal of Psychology Graduate Program Insurance: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Says Corrective Statistical Procedure Emblematic of Psychology's Flaws: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Brad Jesness Target of Malicious Psychologists on Usenet: Brad Jesness

Wyatt Ehrenfels Teams with Medal-Winning Author M.J. John: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Critical of Vaunted Cornell Research Claiming Opposites Do NOT Attract: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Criticizes Berkeley Psychology Professors for Left Wing Bias: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Offers Links to Education and Appropriations Subcommittees: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Thunders Away at Psychology's Load-Bearing Premises: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Counsels High School Students on Choice of College Major: Wyatt Ehrenfels

APPIC Match Service Helps Veterans Hospital Psychologists Discriminate against Applicants w/ Disabilities: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Psychology Professional Development at Odds with Adult Maturation: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Republishes Work of College Curriculum Critic and FOX News Writer Wendy McElroy: Wendy McElroy

Wyatt Ehrenfels Likens Psychological Research to Premature Ejaculation: Wyatt Ehrenfels

According to Social Psychologist Wyatt Ehrenfels, Diversity Is Skin Deep, Black-and-White at University of Michigan: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Dismantles Psychology's Standard Defenses against Criticism: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Points to Hypocrisy in Terror Management Research: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Releases Revitalized Pocket Memo: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Publishes Critique in Revolution Issue of New Therapist Magazine: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Is Psychology at Odds with Itself?: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Says Campaign Not Intend to Offend Psychology Majors: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Why Community Access Television Is Coming Around to Wyatt Ehrenfels: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Overview of Wyatt Ehrenfels's Fireflies in the Shadow of the Sun: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Are Psychology Professors Prejudiced against Psyche: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Psychology's Science of Dreams Fails Science and Dreams: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Psychology Graduate Schools Blasted for Culture of Student Character Assassination: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Ode to Psychology Students: Are You Making A Major out of a Molehill: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Multicultural Fetish of Psychology Professors Belie Suppression of Individual Freedom, Ideas in Psychology: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Games without Frontiers: Ehrenfels Depicts Science of Psychology as ADHD: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Uses Evolutionary Theory, Natural Selection to Impugn D-Volving Psychology: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Reveals American Psychological Association as Lobbying Tour de Force: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Shares Bizarre Tale of Application for University Position: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Dreams & Dreaming Frequently Asked Questions: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Discusses Predictive Power of Tornado Dreams: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Releases Preface to Fireflies in the Shadow of the Sun: Wyatt Ehrenfels

In a Drugged States, New Mexico Legislators Give Psychologists Prescriptive Authority: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Fireflies in the Shadow of the Sun Press Release: Katheryn Moyer

Brad Jesness Exposes Malicious Stalking by Psychologists on Usenet: Brad Jesness

Psychology Majors Respond to Wyatt Ehrenfels fireflySun.com: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Offers Personality Taxonomy: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Offers Blueprint for Blighted Psychology: Wyatt Ehrenfels

From Position of Ignorance, APA Official Diverts Attention from/Urges Skepticism for, Wyatt Ehrenfels APPIC Discrimination Report: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Comes to Terms with Roiled Psychology Graduate Student and News Group Moderator: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Responses to Wyatt Ehrenfels Campaign to Reform Psychology: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Independent Publisher Offers Glowing Review of Fireflies in the Shadow of the Sun: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Teams with Psychotherapist Robert Roerich: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Says Psychology Professors Play Games with Rules: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Teams with Physicist Jeff Schmidt: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Malicious Stalking by Psychologists Abusing Psychotherapy News Group: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Reveals Groupthink, Abuse in Psychology Faculty Evaluation of Graduate Students: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Begins Sequel to Fireflies in the Shadow of the Sun: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Exposes Counseling Center Hiring Preference for Gays, Lesbians: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Diagnoses the Diagnosticians with the Shadow DSM: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Prominent UC-Davis Dream Researcher Dodges Wyatt Ehrenfels Draft of Reformers: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Teams with Management Consulting Maven R. Mallory Starr: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Overview of Wyatt Ehrenfels Dream Research with Cancer Patients: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Comments on the Short Falls of Teaching in Psychology: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Popular Psychotherapy All about Controlling Chaos: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Washington National Cathedral Site of Synchronicity in Novel by Social Psychologist: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Comments on the Value of a Degree in Psychology: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Offers Strategy for Self-Science of Dreams: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Attacks Psychology on Two Fronts: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Connie Vaughn Teams with Wyatt Ehrenfels to Explain Why She Is Not a Psychology: Connie Vaughn

Benjamin Willard Elected President of Wyatt Ehrenfels Fan Club: Benjamin Willard

Wyatt Ehrenfels Identifies Flaws in U.S. News Report of Psychology Employment Prospects: Wyatt Ehrenfels