By using public schools as children's mental health centers, parents may find themselves not only unable to stop the screening, but also at a disadvantage as far as monitoring the process. As a parent, I would have never thought to accompany my child to school the day of the routine check for head lice, but just how involved will I be allowed to be when the school determines my child needs to be referred out for therapy? The legislation has not been processed in committee. Many of the details in this paint-by-numbers approach to mental disorder screening still need to be filled in. Other guidelines may be watered down. But a cautiously alarmist position is required to address a series of unspecified guidelines as they gestate in committee and before the public recovers the eventualities like a descending capsule on NASA radar after the black out. A computer test like that developed by Orwellian-named model program "TeenScreen" composed of only 15 items and yielding no DSM diagnosis may seem no more invasive than having your finger pricked or turning your head to cough while someone other than you or your spouse pinches your testicle. However, there is a lot to consider because, in actuality, even this E-Z take and E-Z score exam is potentially more comparable to a public proctology exam than a pin-prick, setting in motion a comitragic sequence of events that may bare false witness about your true condition and may require that you submit to remedies more damaging than the disease.

Children are not the only population targeted for this invasive screening. Imagine a world where you're forced to get a mental health evaluation whenever you need medical help of any kind. You can be required to submit to a psychological evaluation administered by hospital staff while you're waiting for back surgery. Moreover, you are not exempt from the mandatory screening if you do not have a history of mental illness. You are not exempt from the mandatory screening if you do not exhibit clear signs of mental illness. The language of the bill gives the Commission authority to impose its subjective vision of mental hygiene on anyone and everyone. In the words of the Commission's Final Report:

The Commission supports implementing systematic screening procedures to identify mental health and substance use problems and treatment needs in all settings in which children, youth, adults, or older adults are at high risk for mental illnesses or in settings in which a high occurrence of co-occurring mental and substance use disorders exists. In addition to specialty mental health and substance abuse treatment settings, screening for co-occurring disorders should be implemented when an individual enters the juvenile or criminal justice systems, child welfare system, homeless shelters, hospitals, senior housing, long-term care facilities, nursing homes, and other settings where populations are at high risk. Screening should also occur periodically after an individual enters any of these facilities...When mental health problems are identified, children, youth, adults, and older adults should be linked with appropriate services, supports, or diversion programs. Additionally, given the high incidence of substance use disorders among parents of children in the child welfare system, where indicated, these parents should be screened for co-occurring disorders and linked with appropriate treatment and supports.

Earlier this week the issue was brought to the attention of Wyatt Ehrenfels, and Ehrenfels was asked to address the daunting prospect of giving mental health care providers control over our lives. "To a certain extent I sympathize with the rather fierce and hysterical professionalism legislators like Napolitano have thrown at the issue of teen suicide and discrimination against the mentally disabled. But as I will make clear in my report, there are less invasive ways to ensure support and services for persons with mental illness. And in the report that follows, you will also understand the consequences of implementing the Commission's recommendations.

The meddling officiousness and general invasiveness of the Commission went largely unexplored until Jeanne Lenzer of conservative e-zine WorldNetDaily issued her report (06.21.04) alleging plans by the President "to screen the whole U.S. population for mental illness" as part of a "sweeping initiative to link diagnoses to treatment with specific drugs." Dave Eberhart of NewsMax.com (11.11.04) writes that "under new law being considered, the federal government would require that every child in America undergo psychological screening and receive recommended treatment, including drug therapies." Even Association of American Physicians & Surgeons (AAPS) officials, led by surgeon and Representative Ron Paul, M.D. (R-Texas) denounced what they described as "a dangerous scheme that will heap even more coercive pressure on parents to medicate children with potentially dangerous side effects." And Parents for Label and Drug Free Education insist on doctrines of informed consent and the right to privacy in a report in which they declare their refusal to comply with any New Freedom Commission mandate for universal mental health screening of children in the schools.

The idea is particularly ghoulish to anyone familiar with Psychology's model of training and professional development, like author and social psychologist Wyatt Ehrenfels, who has spent the better part of the last three years raising questions about the health of Psychology's academic and professional communities. "[Psychologists] were ineffective but largely benign when their policies and procedures subverted scientific requirements for institutional aims and when their personal prejudices targeted the careers of individuals whose personalities did not present the academic community as a group with the perfect fit and paragon of mental hygiene. But all this talk in the Commission report about bridging a soon-to-be-expanded workforce of mental health professionals to public communities like schools is all shades of ominous." Largely an exposé, Ehrenfels's 800-page Fireflies in the Shadow of the Sun incorporated a couple of fictitious subplots to symbolize the broader implications of Psychology's policies, procedures, and prejudices, but Ehrenfels admits to being spooked by the spate of recent events in which these hypothetical events are playing out in reality, including a comprehensive White House initiative to give psychologists more control over our lives. Having been completed in late 2000 (published 2004), the book identifies a Democratic White House as the source of the malfeasance. "I always thought it would be the other party, with its appetite for regulation and its emphasis on political correctness and sensitivity training, that would foster a culture of officious meddle," commented Ehrenfels, adding that "the effort to combat the stigmatization of mental illness will likely backfire by producing a culture of mental illness comparable to the race consciousness buttressed by their high-octane, steroid-enhanced brand of diversity and multiculturalism."

The incendiary language is contained in Chapter 4 of the Commission's final report, titled Early Mental Health Screening, Assessment, and Referral to Services Are Common Practice. In the section Early Assessment and Treatment Are Critical Across the Life Span, the Commission writes:

"Quality screening and early intervention should occur in readily accessible, low-stigma settings, such as primary health care facilities and schools...The extent, severity, and far-reaching consequences make it imperative that our Nation adopt a comprehensive, systemic approach to improving the mental health status of children...For consumers of all ages, early detection, assessment, and linkage with treatment and supports can prevent mental health problems from compounding and poor life outcomes from accumulating. Early intervention can have a significant impact on the lives of children and adults who experience mental health problems. Emerging research indicates that intervening early can interrupt the negative course of some mental illnesses and may, in some cases, lessen long-term disability. New understanding of the brain indicates that early identification and intervention can sharply improve outcomes and that longer periods of abnormal thoughts and behavior have cumulative effects and can limit capacity for recovery.

Clearly, school mental health programs must provide any screening or treatment services with full attention to the confidentiality and privacy of children and families...The Commission recommends that Federal, State, and local child-serving agencies fully recognize and address the mental health needs of youth in the education system. They can work collaboratively with families to develop, evaluate, and disseminate effective approaches for providing mental health services and supports to youth in schools along a critical continuum of care. This continuum includes education and training, prevention, early identification, early intervention, and treatment...The Columbia University TeenScreen® program provides a model for early intervention.

Treatment Algorithms Triggered by DSM Diagnoses: DSM Diagnostic Categories Inherently Subjective

Arbitrary. Treatment algorithms are triggered by diagnoses. The diagnostic categories are provided by The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) published by the American Psychiatric Association. The DSM disorders are inherently subjective classifications created arbitrarily in social committes as a professional convenience, namely to give a community of 400+ schools of psychotherapy a common language with which to address one another and sources of third party reimbursement (i.e. insurance companies).

Unreliable. Evidence suggests that trained professionals do not reliably draw the same conclusions regarding classification of individuals using the DSM, and not all clinical psychologists are trained to make differential diagnoses, those tough calls between related but distinguishable disorders or disorders with similar presentations at different stages.

Calcified. The DSM is arguably responsible for retarding scientific progress in clinical psychology. Ever since faculty search committees began using their fetish for external funding sources to thin their stack of applications, psychological researchers started pursuing grants like the Grail. And since funding agencies tend to award grants for proposals clad in DSM diagnostic nomenclature, the DSM became Biblical, which is to say, Da Vinci code for a map of the psychological landscape. The DSM has become the universal language of clinical researchers, driving psychological inquiry into a Holland tunnel between a Gotham Psychology and... well... Jersey. The institution-wide epidemic of selection attention that ignores normal psychopathology and fractures the human condition into pieces beyond the skills of All the Kings Horses and All the Kings Men is such that bold new ways of thinking about psychopathology become systemically impossible. Any progress in mental health research is measured in units of miniscule deviation from a disorder as presented in the DSM.

Homogenizing. If we are going to customize treatment, which is to say develop individual treatment plans as called for by the Commission, it will require substantial case conceptualization skills on the part of the psychologist to offset the DSMs dehumanizing and deindividuating classification scheme. Having trained with psychologists and understanding the effects of the training model from both a behaviorist and evolutionary perspective, I have no confidence in the case conceptualization skills of the all-too-common psychologist. And let's face it -- when the Commission speaks of "individual" treatment plans, it really means finding the right DSM category for the individual. That is a far cry from true customization.

Materialistic/Medical Model Means Medication Is Never Far Away. The DSM carves in stone sets of symptoms as they typically cluster across a population and thus likely reflect an organic contribution. And this should come as no surprise to anyone who knows the manual is published by the American Psychiatric Association. The DSM is based on an implicit medical model of psychopathology, meaning that for many mental health professionals, the thought of a psychpharmacologic agent is reflexively triggered by the thought of a DSM disorder. Once you or your son or daughter is diagnosed with a DSM disorder (Generalized Anxiety Disorder), or even an associated feature (Anxiety), the diagnosing mental health professional or any other mental health professional examining the file down the road, will consider medication.

Most Psychotropic Medications Not FDA Approved for Use in Children. The corporate malfeasance within pharmaceutical behemoth Merck alone, which continued to sell Vioxx in spite of a gathering storm of evidence about its adverse and, in some cases, fatal effects, is reason enough not to fast-track pharmacotherapies for children. (New web sites documenting critical incidents in pharmaceuticals, such as Psych Watch, are added to the anti-psychiatry network on almost a weekly basis). Since the vast majority of drugs are not tested on children (who would volunteer their child for such an experiment?), the effects of various drugs on children is unknown except for the anecdotal evidence amassed for drugs that become necessary to treat some medical (non-psychological) condition. Recently, preliminary research suggested that Prozac, the only antidepressant certified as safe for children, may make kids more suicidal. (other major antidepressants prescribed for kids already have been found to raise the risk of suicidal behavior). In March, 2004 the FDA requested drug companies relabel ten antidepressants to warn parents that young patients should be watched for worsening depression and anxiety. Dozens of parents had testified at a hearing that antidepressants caused their children to kill themselves. An FDA advisory panel chairman opened many eyes to the problem of individual differences when he stated that antidepressants seem to generate more suicidal behavior in some, but prevent suicide in others. While child or teen depression can pose critical risks to life and health, wouldn't you want to exhaust your treatment options before resorting to medication, rather than taking the advice of a mental health professional recommending medication as an adjutant treatment? Wouldn't you want to know whether you're dealing with a mental health professor who knows the difference between a psycho- or exogenic depression and a biological one? Because not all depressions are equal. I was depressed for weeks after learning someone had broken my high school record in the 600 meter track event. I was also depressed to learn that one of my very pretty 21-year-old high school teachers, for whom I had a bit of a thing, announced her engagement to some gomer (well, okay, she didn't actually call him a "gomer" and I didn't know him, but didn't I owe it to myself in that condition to take the liberty of presuming some of his unfavorable qualities?). I was down and -- who knows? -- maybe an antidepressant would have picked me up. But maybe other things would have picked me up. Maybe allowing myself to feel depressed and then psychologically resolving the depression helped me to grow -- to mature -- to channel my mood in artistic creations and athletic achievements -- and to learn to fall for women within one standard deviation of my age. Maybe an antidepressant would have killed me. One thing I know for sure is that psychologists themselves, by 'medicating their therapeutic model' (co-opting the DSM from psychiatrists and lobbying for prescriptive authority for them or their ilk), have denied themselves an opportunity to grow and mature as therapists. Psychologists have adopted a materialistic bias that has caused them to foreclose on many issues and phenomena as brain-based and, by waiting for colleagues to solve the riddles of the world in a test tube called the cranium, have relinquished their responsibility to actually use their own brains in favor of templated treatment protocols and prescription pads. When my PC kept freezing up on me and my monitor displayed my icons in a funky color, I correctly diagnosed the problem as a hardware problem and opened my tower case to a replace an aging video card, but not everything I see on my screen can be fully explained by what's inside the tower case and monitor. While these are clearly invaluable in running the PC, I wouldn't be able to perform the vast majority of my tasks without software. Think about that before you dismiss the mind as a linquistic proxy for what is not yet known about the brain or as a pork byproduct of so many firing neurons. You would not be at all satisfied if I tried to use the Big Bang Theory to explain the recession of 2000. Well, generic brain-based explanations have that same homogenizing effect on people. At least in the medical field, the roles of doctor and scientist can be bridged by medical tests that afford the physician a fairly accurate picture of exactly what is happening inside a person at a given moment. A battery of artfully designed psychometric and projective tests (I see some used in clinical assessment, though seldom in clinical research), can do the same for a psychological profile of an individual, but I don't hear the Commission recommending we use MMPIs, MMCIs, and Rorschachs as screening devices. The tests are just too long and expensive (the MMPI is about 550 questions) and psychologists want to limit exposure to these tests to those who really need them when they really need them. They can be effective, especially when combined with other tests in a hypothesis-driven battery. How probing do you think the 15-item TeenScreen device will be? I haven't seen the test, but if this is an omnibus test assessing for multiple disorders, I would expect a list of such state-of-the-art items as "1. I feel depressed...2. I am giving serious thought to ending my life. 3. I feel anxious...4. I am seeing things that are not really there", but if this a test of a single disorder (e.g. depression) and if I know my Tests & Measurements, I would have to say that the test author opened his Thesaurus and found fourteen different ways to re-word the first question, "1. I feel depressed?" to get the minimum required coefficient of internal consistency (e.g. Cronbach's alpha). In either case, all the screening may amount to is a paper-and-pencil subsitute for asking the child whether he or she does not feel right. And if the child uses his or her pencil or keyboard to say 'no' (and according to TeenScreen, its tests have a 30-35% positive rate), you have automatic referrals for therapy for 400-420 students in the 1,200-strong high school mandated for further clinical evaluation. I am beginning to understand why I have not seen mental health professionals asking tough questions of the Commission plan. So far, all this may be benign enough, but what is the obligation of parent and child after the initial consultation or intake? And where is this sequalae of events recorded? Hopefully not in the school's file system. And more to the point, what happens next?

Medical Treatment in Non-Medical Science. Unlike an abnormally high level of creatine in a CBC report, the level of anxiety or depression in the 'mental bloodstream' is fraught with interpretation problems. Our science has not developed to the point where we can say anything meaningful about an individual's occupational functioning and quality of life based on a score of x on this or that paper-and-pencil questionnaire. The methods used to establish the psychometric properties of a questionnaire -- what we know about a questionnaire's reliability and validity -- is based on aggregate data. Seldom if ever do psychological researchers treat individuals as a series of n = 1 experiments, following a series of individuals over an extensive period and examining each of them indepth. We never really look at variance within individuals, preserving that person's integrity and individuality and drawing conclusions within the person before extracting commonalities across persons. No. What we do is the statistical equivalent of grinding individuals through an industrial sausage press, generating rules for which the vast majority of individuals are, to one degree or another, exceptions. So even if a reliable instrument is used to diagnose an individual as having this or that disorder, know that this does not mean we can be reasonably certain the individual has that disorder. There will be false positives, and this is not acceptable where we are forcing individuals without cause and with no known history of psychopathology to submit to these questionnaires. There will be cases where the burden will fall on individuals testing positive on such and such a questionnaire to prove in a follow-up intake with a mental health professional that they are not certifiably anxious or depressed. And since the DSM is an implicitly medical classification scheme, psychotropic medications will always be regarded as a prospective treatment for the individual, depending on the algorithm or the subjective preference and philosophy of the professional.

A Diagnostic Culture: Sensitive Diagnosticians, Stubborn Labels. There will be cases where mental health professionals assign trait-like status to what are actually normal states. By this I mean that individuals, especially children, are given to 'just passing through' this or that psychological condition developmentally or situationally. Unfortunately, the culture of assessment and diagnosis is prone to viewing varying weather patterns as climatology. I all-too-often witnessed this firsthand during my graduate training. Psychology professors loved to diagnose their graduate students, if not with a DSM disorder, then with some character flaw. They were always telescoping classroom attitudes and behaviors, drawing characterological inferences from them and then broadcasting these impressions to the rest of the truth-squading faculty during an end-of-academic-term witch hunt masquerading as an academic performance and progress evaluation meeting. Once the student was saddled with this slanderous characterological designation, he was listed as a subject for intense and enduring scrutiny and effectively case managed for the remainder of his or her career as a graduate student. Expectations were recalibrated, and a case was built against the student's "professionalism" and "fit." Everything "went in the file." In most cases, the professors ended up seeing things they never would have seen if they did not have their radar on, and despite the fact the professors as individuals did not have a problem with the student, they all labored under this free-floating idea that the student, having been indicted by the faculty as a whole, is a problem and that, as a professor, there was still due process yet to be meted out. The professor felt responsible to rule one way or another on the student's behavior in his or her classroom or in capacity as his or her teaching/research assistant and, to appear useful and credible, no report on the student was ever completely clean. There would always be at least traces of the character diagnosed/indicted by the faculty, and even if the reporting professor did not think the reported traces would make trouble for the student, at least one other faculty member would perceive the traces as evidence of an unwillingness or inability to adjust on the part of the student.

The Assessment Tools: Just How Will the Individual Child or Adult Be Diagnosed

Just how will the individual child or adult be diagnosed? The Commission tauts the not-for-profit foundation-funded Columbia University TeenScreen® Program as a model youth screening program, the goal of which is "to ensure that all youth are offered a mental health check-up before graduating from high school. TeenScreen® currently identifies and refers for treatment those who are at risk for suicide or suffer from an untreated mental illness in 69 middle/high schools across 27 states. However, the one feature of the TeenScreen® Program the Commission seeks not to emulate is its parental consent provision. In the TeenScreen® Program, "all youngsters in a school, with parental consent [emphasis added], are given a computer-based questionnaire that screens them for mental illnesses and suicide risk. At no charge, the Columbia University TeenScreen® Program provides consultation, screening materials, software, training, and technical assistance to qualifying schools and communities. In return, TeenScreen® partners are expected to screen at least 200 youth per year and ensure that a licensed mental health professional is on-site to give immediate counseling and referral services for youth at greatest risk...When the program identifies youth needing treatment, their care is paid for depending on the family's health coverage." In light of the fact many of the students identified as at-risk by the program did not seek mental health services, the Commission reported that its biggest challenge is to "bridge the gap between schools and local providers of mental health services and, in times of fiscal austerity, to ensure that schools devote a health professional to screening and referral." The Columbia University TeenScreen® Program is pilot-testing a shorter questionnaire that is less costly and time-consuming for the school to administer and it also trying to adapt the program to primary care settings. Since the TeenScreen® does not offer a diagnosis (indicating only the likelihood of a mental health problem), TeenScreen® recommends (and Commission legislation may require) that all screening tools be followed up by a clinical interview with a trained mental health professional to determine if further evaluation is needed.

Follow-Up with Whom?Mental health professionals come in many shapes and sizes. There are school psychologists, clinical social workers (M.S.W), clinical Psy.D. psychologists with a potentially solid background in assessment and treatment modalities, clinical Ph.D. psychologists whose graduate training may have emphasized research skills, and M.D. psychiatrists. Will the student be referred to the inhouse school psychologist? With all the talk in the report of bridging gaps between schools and local providers of mental health services, the legislation may fund the hiring of part-time contractual mental health professionals, or may send the student out into the community. But I'd be interested to note whether the legislation places any requirements on the class of mental health professional. Clinical social workers come cheap. With only master's level degrees and no greater than a year of practical clinical experience, inexpensive social workers tend to be the choice of cash-strapped clinics or hospitals to staff mental health service positions. Only psychologists are sufficiently trained to administer, interpret, and report most questionnaires, but a computer questionnaire developed by the likes of TeenScreen (especially a short 15-item version) may not require much expertise and may breed a new class of specialist familiar with this one test, or may require the inhouse school psychologist (or for that matter, all mental health professionals) to be familiar with the test. If treatment algorithms like those used in Texas are adopted nationally, could a TeenScreen test outcome indicating psychotic or suicidal features require a direct referral to a psychiatrist?

Treatment Algorithms. A Texas-Size Boondoggle?. Critics of the plan suggest that the random testing of millions of people makes little sense to anyone but the drug companies that will stand to profit from the potential customers. The New Freedom Commission’s proposed treatment programs are based on the Texas Medication Algorithm Project (TMAP). TMAP, started in 1996, is designed to develop, implement and evaluate not just a set of medication algorithms, but an algorithm-driven treatment philosophy for major adult psychiatric disorders treated in the Texas public mental health sector. The ultimate goal of TMAP is to improve the quality of care and achieve the best possible patient outcomes for each dollar of resource expended. TMAP is a treatment philosophy for the medication management portion of care. According to TMAP's web site, the phased development and evaluation of the treatment guidelines begins with the creation of algorithms, specific stepwise graphical sequences, through what is called "consensus conferences" (i.e. scientific evidence and expert clinical consensus). In layman's terms, the committee agrees (remarkably without a sole voice of dissent) to a set of best practices concerning the use of specific psychotropic drugs for each of a number of mental disorders. Knowing that the science is not that advanced (and is also conflictual), Wyatt Ehrenfels smiles mockingly at the unctuous discussion of consensus, no doubt proferred to pre-emptively slam the door on dissent by attempting to overwhelm the inevitable critic with the sheer brute force of a socially engineered "unanimity of experts." The figure below illustrates a TMAP algorithm developed for non-psychotic depression:

In an exclusive interview with NewsMax, Representative Paul likened the program to a "therapeutic nanny state," adding "it’s not hard to imagine a time 20 or 30 years from now when government psychiatrists stigmatize children whose religious, social, or political values do not comport with those of the politically correct, secular state."

Wyatt Ehrenfels presented an array of concerns over the false positive rate associated with paper-and-pencil questionnaires in the TeenScreen program (Columbia Health Screen; Columbia Depression Scale; Diagnostic Predictive Scales; Columbia Health Screen). "I am concerned primarily about precedent. Right now, it would appear from the examples that are being pushed to the front of this slideshow that the schools will screen for debilitating forms of likely biologically-based disorders of mood and anxiety. If this is the case, then it would support the fears of parents and professionals like Dr. Paul that mental health professionals would require the administration of psychotropic medication to our children and administer these drugs by way of the TMAP algorithms. The fears grow exponentially when we consider any NFC-empowering legislation in light of an independent movement to vest non-medically-trained clinical psychologists with prescriptive authority.

American Psychological Association Shills for Commission

The American Psychological Association, which threw its weight behind the prescriptive authority movement, recently went on the record to applaud the Final Report of the President's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health. In a press release from APAs Public Affairs Office (07.22.03), American Psychological Association Chief Executive Officer Normal B. Anderson claimed the recommendations "will help to ameliorate the fragmentation that is rampant throughout our country’s existing mental health delivery system and will significantly improve the lives of people living with mental disorders." Leaving no doubt as to the role APA would play in promoting the recommendations, Normal writes, "Our Association looks forward to embarking on the journey with other stakeholders in mental health to breathe life and hope into the recommendations set forth by the Commission.". For any of you who doubt the political clout and determination of the American Psychological Association, I remind you that this political engine managed to persuade New Mexico legislators to grant psychologists with no medical training the authority to prescribe medication over the objections of the bewilderdingly outmaneuvered and outsmarted American Medical Association and American Psychiatric Association. The APA Monitor (December, 2004) reports that APA Public Policy Office staff "have helped prepare members of APA's Committee on Children, Youth, and Families to visit Senate offices in their home states...We want to get this agenda moving at the start of the 109th Congress" (p 40). None of the dozen or so dilemmas and challenges posed by the Commission recommendations is mentioned in the Monitor's ten page article, with the exception of an article announcing an APA working group chaired by a PhD and expert in pediatric psychology is taking a "serious look" at the issue of prescribing psychoactive medications for children and adolescents, an issue the APA should leave to qualified associations (but then I too would feel I can do just about anything after winning prescriptive authority for non-medically trained psychologists in New Mexico). Although psychologists make out whether psychotropic medication is mainstreamed or criminalized, I doubt Congress would have been as receptive to the APA if it had not characterized the mental health crisis as an epidemic of "neuropsychiatric disorders" in children (p 38). When treating neuropsychiatric disorders, one does not live on talk therapy alone. So try to look surprised when the APA working group announces something to the effect that "the benefits of prescribing medication the FDA has not approved for use in children outweighs the risks." I found the Monitor articles self-congratulatory gloss, with the kind of pep and fluff you come to expect from a union newsletter, eagerly anticipating new roles for psychologists and celebrating prominent roles of APA members on the Presidential Commission.

In addition to the APA Public Policy Office, the administratively and politically hyperactive-but-inattentive APA includes a Public Education Campaign, a psychology-in-the-media listserv, a Practice Directorate with "Lobbying Facts Sheets" and "Advocacy Alerts", an Office of Policy and Advocacy in the Schools (the APA is currently trying to standardize content for high school psychology curricula), and a Science Student Council (APASSC).

But make no mistake about it. Psychologists benefit materially from this resolution. Psychologists have been curmudgeonly dispeptic for decades about not having enough of a role in shaping federal social policies. Moreover, in my experience, psychologists express a lot of private frustration about not having received enough recognition at the household level. With a 30-35% positive rate for the Teen Screen assessment tool cited as a "model" by the Commission, a high school of 1200 students would refer 400-420 students out for clinical evaluation, which not only creates work and jobs for psychologists but also makes psychologists about as ubiquitous and recognizable as the mailman. The phrase "My psychologist" would become even more common than "My attorney," "My editor," and "My publicist," and nearly as common as "My doctor."

Just imagine what a Brave New World could be created when psychiatrists, pharmaceutical companies, and a critical number of psychologists, backed by the American Psychological Association, join forces to implement a vision of community mental hygiene.

The Potential for Abuse

But I am also thinking ahead. Whatever 'algorithms,' for lack of an honest word, are adopted to treat these compelling mood and anxiety disorders, I suspect it would not be long before some psychologist or federal bureaucrat seeks to make his or her mark on the world by expanding algorithms beyond the non-psychotic depression to non-clinical forms of normal psychopathology, and even personality, seeking to brand every child who does not play well with others. Psychology's academic communities tend toward this state of affairs, as witnessed by the CV of the APA's administrative savant that boasts a sole responsibility for changing the way we indent paragraphs...and by the incorrigible propensity of trigger-happy diagnosticians within graduate faculties to assassinate student personalities in end-of-academic-term evaluation meetings under the guise of evaluating academic performance and classroom attitudes. In the NFC, we find recommendations to feed a common urgeb to paternalism among psychologists and politicians.

Practically speaking, I am also concerned by the absence of reassurances the diagnostic information about the child will not be made available to a teacher for use as a tool in the personality conflict with a student. There will be teachers who will give in to the urge to use the diagnoses to skew their perception of the student or to defend the assignment of grades and tasks that make the previously unlabeled condition part of the student's day-to-day legacy. As a student who knows what it's like to have been embattled in graduate school, I distinctly remember the rather odd behavior from faculty at during the stretch they confined their perceptions of me to meetings behind closed doors. Not until that end-of-academic term faculty meeting did the better part of a semester's behavior toward me make any sense. My career was nearly posthumous by the time they came forward with their concerns about me, and they did not seem interested in offering me much of an opportunity to address them. Even though DSM diagnostic constructs were not involved in the sustained indictment of my professionalism and fit, this is where the psych profs demonstrated a creativity with which they mobilized scientific gravitas around otherwise informal, unsubstantiated, and recklessly arbitrary buzzwords like 'professionalism,' 'arrogance,' 'collegiality,' and 'willingness to adjust.' There would be nothing more abhorrent than to see the DSM used as a defamation delivery device within middle schools.

Allocating government resources to ideologies organized around visions like that of "a healthier Nation" has occassionally proven fatal in the history of our civilization, especially when the vision requires so many different and remote agencies to plug into one another. If the number of instances in which the word 'integration' and 'consensus' are used in connection with the NFC is any indication, we can be in for the kind of cataclysm, conjuring images of George Orwell and Aldous Huxley, that usually involves mass hysteria, post-traumatic stress, or acopalyptic vision. The NFC envisions the aid of Everything from the National Institutes of Health to the media to middle schools, and even cites the usual marketing unmentionables-if-not-imponderables as dialogue meetings, consumer-to-target audience, interpersonal contact methods, and speaker's bureaus. The language even includes "collaboration between the public and private sectors and close coordination with consumers and other stakeholders is encouraged to reduce the possibility of sending mixed messages or duplicated messages to the public." Just what does this statement mean, anyway? It's statements like these that prompt such questions as 'okay, I want a complete list of everyone within the purview of the defined stakeholder and 'what does it mean to mean to duplicate a message to the public?' Often the cures bring about the very ills they were designed to prevent and may be construed as a symptom of a latent disease in the practitioner himself. And the name for the remedy typically includes valuative terminology ("New Freedom") that will make the paradoxical outcome even more painfully obvious.

Successfully transforming the mental health system, hinges, in part, on better balancing fiscal resources to support using proven, evidence-based practices. The Commission encourages public- and private-sector payers to reframe their reimbursement policies to better support and widely implement EBPs...The Commission urges the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to provide technical assistance to States on how to effectively finance EBPs.

"Okay. Being as youthful and neurotic as some of the children in the targeted population, the science of Psychology has simply not progressed to the point of proven, evidence-based practices. In many cases, we have research pointing us in the direction of practices that may work, even if we don't know or care why they work. Legislation like this will no doubt stunt genuine scientific progress by making it prematurely accountable to social goals and scrutiny, and by making people's careers in science contingent on using or finding the next proven thing. Once we introduced grants and other forms of funding into the padding of CVs and the search for new tenure-track faculty, we marginalized and corrupted phenomena that is not competitively suited to this kind of incentive system. Do you think I can get very far professionally staking my career on the study of dreams? The further the phenomenon from the social and material context of the science, and the further the theory or the methodology from unspoken aspects of the 'consensus,' the less likely it is to survive in a department of Psychology, which is why we know so little about dreams and why, metaphorically speaking, our science does not balance its technical missions to Mars with its reconnaissance missions to relatively chimerical Saturn. Once we cut the ribbons on some of these screening and treatment algorithms, we will find them as difficult to change as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders on which they are based. And if you think the DSM tunnels our vision of phenomenology now, just wait until we add yet another layer of social legitimacy and tie it into an even larger economic pie.

No Jacket Required

The Commission could achieve the goal of providing mental health services to those who need it without having to enact such recklessly compulsory and comprehensive legislation. I find it unfortunate that some of the useful findings in the report are so woefully overshadowed by a few overreaching recommendations. I think the course the Commission laid out to improve mental health education within the public, the school system, and the primary health provider community is worthwhile. But if even well-trained primary health providers, primary caregivers, and school officials know they can defer responsibility to the mandatory mental health screen, they will be less likely to put their education to use in taking an active role. Any person who does not wish to be processed through the mental health delivery system will know exactly how to answer those obvious Teen Screen questions (no expert coaching required), and will do so with as much diligence as someone desperate to dodge a summons for jury duty.

A Broad Chracterization of Psychology's Academic Communities: A Bulleted Memo

"Passing every child and adult through health security checkpoints manned by psychologically unsophisticated psychologists and psychiatrists is not the answer. I think this is a debate I can not only win on points, by pointing out flaws in the practical mechanics of the recommended procedures, but that I could also win on principle, by punching holes in the pseudo-medical and pseudo-scientific persona of Psychology's academic and professional communities." -- J. Wyatt Ehrenfels

• Psychologists do not appreciate variation among persons, otherwise known as personality. The research methodologies and branches of Psychology that regard individual differences as 'error variance' are burgeoning. The brand of science practices within Psychology avoids the study individuals by aggregating data across research participants in statistical sausage grinders, producing rules for which the vast majority of individuals are, to one extent or another, exceptions. The one branch of science hospitable to an intellectual curiosity about personality (i.e. Personality Psychology) has been disappearing from graduate psychology programs nationwide in the 90s.
  

• Scientific knowledge in Psychology has not progressed to the point where practitioners can offer anything other than widely varying subjective judgments, which is probably why the Commission will seriously consider deploying the ballistic algorithms from the Texas model. It is also probably why so many in the public and in the professional community look to meds for a reliable, one-size-fits-all solution to our mental health problems. This is not to say you don't have a few wise persons in the mental health community, though this remains by and large a hypothetical construct in my personal experience. After you read what I have to say about Psychology's professional development model, you will agitate over not being able to know whose judgment to trust, and you will wish TeenScreen devised a tool to measure the mental health of mental health professionals.
  

• Dehumanization within the psychological community. For reasons that should be clearer the further you delve into this report,the all-too-common psychologist does not like human beings, viewing his or her role as one of managing chaos and bringing people in line with community norms. Psychologists are not trained to conceptualize clients as whole persons, but to target problematic behaviors for remediation. The prevailing professional development model is such that too many students with natural abilities to conceptualize clients as whole persons are subject to a form of professional abortion and do not become psychologists.
  

• Deindividuation within the psychological community. Within their own community, psychologists conceal and compensate for a natural diversity by resorting to extraordinary, 'para-critical' measures of enforcing conventional ideas and practices. Someone needs to remind psychologists that unconventional wisdom is not a DSM diagnostic category and; if geneticists had identified a chromosome for unconventional wisdom, psychologists would be lobbying Congress to increase funds for genetic therapies.
  

• Psychologists lack the ability to tolerate ambiguity and uncertainty that is required for genuine progress within a young science. Psychology is a young and messy science and with all the uncertainty, it is unfortunate Psychology's training model should appeal to, select, and breed professionals who are that uncomfortable working with ambiguity. These people hate human beings and hate wisdom. They demand facts and exhibit all sorts of pathology to conceal or compensate for the gaping holes in their organized body of knowledge. A lack of progress can be expected given the nature of the subject matter and the youthfulness of the enterprise, but psychologists do a number of things to retard progress. To distract themselves and the public from the current state of progress, they develop a bloated network of shared expectations governing everything from teaching and research to training and professional development -- arbitrary and superfluous policies and procedures that restrict independent thinking in favor of projecting an excessive, precipitous, and largely cosmetic image of formality. Within the psychological community, you are nothing if you are not receiving grant money for end-stage scientific research, resulting in the neglect or the distortion of phenomena about which little is known and which may not lend itself quite as readily to the end-stage assembly line.
  

• To alleviate their own doubts that what they are doing is right, the all-too-common psychologist and psych prof demands conformity from their peers and the graduate students. The conformity of others provides a psychological crutch and serves as a form of therapy to help them cope with the gaping hole between the current state of affairs and the household fame they seek as policy analysts, mental health hygienists, and contributors to new social legislation. The culture of conformity (active) and slavish compliance with the network of shared expectations (passive) provides a good remedy for the self-doubts of academics and professionals in Psychology, who work to surround themselves at all times and at all costs with those who think just like them to help remind them that they are on the right track. (This is probably sufficient to explain the way these academics abuse end-of-semester evaluation meetings to levy swift and disproportionate punishment on graduate students who stray one inch to either side of the proverbial white line).
  

• Viewed from an evolutionary perspective, we see in Psychology's dwindling progress some Darwinian properties. It's unclear how much blame should be apportioned between the psychological faculty's selection criteria and its socialization pressures. However, it is clear that the insistence on harmony and integration within the psychological community itself has created a remarkably homogeneous community of supplicating trainees, serviceable standard bearers, and administrative savants. As the network of shared expectations connecting individual professionals gets stronger, the quality of each professional's wits becomes a hindrance to the community, and the faculty responds with mechanisms and prejudices designed to punish the individual for placing value on his or her own "faculties." You may make the mistake of trusting the judgment of mental health professionals knowing everything they had to survive so many levels of vetting. But in actuality, if you knew what had to be sacrificed so that these individuals could prevail in Psychology's game of Survivor, you would regain your skepticism in a hurry.
  

• Within their own community, psychologists conceal and compensate for a natural diversity of ideas and skills by resorting to extraordinary, 'para-critical' measures of enforcing conventional practices. In other words, those graduate students that do not have the epistemology of the field coursing their bloodstream or who exhibit some tendency or make a decision that is deemed unconventional, the student's professionalism and fitness is subject to acrimonious evaluation, documentation, and monitoring by psychology faculty. (See my characterization of the end-of-academic-term evaluation of students presented above).
  

• In the absence of substantive discoveries (a deficit exacerbated by the SOPs), policies and procedures themselves are passed off as progress in the study of human nature. And the people will continue to trust this community as long as they can not penetrate the arcane epistemology of the field disguised as APA writing style and other jargon (not that the public and body politic turn the jaundiced pages of the research banished to the university libraries).
  

• Ranking and aspiring members of the psychological community alike are behaviorally reinforced and generally socialized by an idea professional development that puts us at odds with requirements for maturation, individuation, and genuine scientific progress. Many of the standard operating policies and procedures that govern everything in departments of Psychology, including knowledge production, faculty selection, and professional training, fosters a regulatory culture inconsistent with real academic freedom and intellectual diversity. Someone needs to remind psychologists that unconventional wisdom is not a DSM diagnostic category and; if geneticists had identified a chromosome for unconventional wisdom, psychologists would be lobbying Congress to increase funds for genetic therapies.
  

• The structure of career inducements and incentives, the sheer competition, a ubiquitously saturated labor market, and the zero sum nature of employment in Psychology encourages an excessively, gratuitously, and prematurely fierce professionalism -- a culture of compliance within a world of arbitrary and superfluous 'standards' -- 'standards' that have less standing in science than in service to personal and institutional aims. To the extent that an individual member reaches career milestones by identifying with (or internalizing) these standards, in effect by embodying the bloated epistemology of this field, the person's own capacity to formulate independent judgments is compromised and, consequently, the person is forced to rely on the external standards (and the consensus of others it represents) to function as a mental health professional. This is a vicious cycle of escalating co-dependence and devotion.
  

• The all-too-common psychologist and psychology professor can present as quite altruistic. As you might imagine, they know how to make a good impression and manage public perception. But if you look more closely, you will see that the public relations persona conceals and compensates for prejudices. For example, behind a fetishistic rhapsodizing about multiculturalism and diversity -- behind a paternalistic regard for the welfare of their students and the public -- is a contempt for (1) diversity of ideas/interests, (2) a folk beliefs and popular culture, (3) individual talent and freedom, and (4) personal matter (e.g. memories, dreams, reflections) that was once inside an individual. There is a form of black-and-white thinking among psychology professors, limiting the depth of their diversity so that it is only skin-deep, and that what psych profs really want within their own department is a racially and ethnically diverse group of like-minded drones. But for the asphyxiating smog of race consciousness their rabid anti-prejudice actually promotes, no one would question their commitment to freedom and diversity.
  

  Whether this is a deliberate strategy to pull the wool over the public's eyes or an expression of psychopathology of which even they are unaware, is anyone's guess at this point. But make no mistake about it. Graduate faculty despise products of individual thought because they do not conform as readily to established ways of thinking codified in research and teaching policy governing the use everything from textbooks and multiple-choice tests to templated research methods. Nowhere is the disparagement of the personal more evident than in our current view of professionalism. Most of the psychologists I know hate people and want their clients to succumb to their vision of adjustment to an external world. In other words, most psychologists want to preside over the world's mental hygiene as police officers and policy analysts. Maturity, humanity, and individuation have come into conflict with this regulatory mentality, a mentality that locates a person's most significant activity outside the self. The self-indulgent ruminations and readings of the classic scholar and the exploratory research of the detective are treated as a lamentable dalliance and a shunning of obligations that are considered socially productive. In departments of Psychology, you are nothing if you are not a grant recipient, media maven, program developer, or policy analyst. Whenever economic exigency prompts a politician to consider cutting public funding for something associated with mental health (e.g. sex research), the APAs policy action committee mobilizes its 60,000+ strong membership, and e-tools like listserv-disseminated public policy action alerts send psychologists swarming like locusts over Capitol Hill (see APA Click Away from Capitol Hill. Is it any wonder a university mantra like "the pursuit of truth" could be abandoned in favor of "commitment to excellence," measured -- how else? -- but in degrees of compliance with policies and procedures?
  

Summing Up

Considered collectively, the screening devices (assessment), the DSM (diagnosis), and the algorithms (treatment), even where sprinkled with the subjective judgment of dubiously trained mental health professionals, will combine to create an historic system of dehumanizing and deindividuating any person shepherded through the door. The Commission speaks of alleviating the stigmatization of mental health, but where they succeed in restoring dignity to their own DSM diagnostic categories, they will fail when it comes to the dignity and integrity of the person subjected to their mental health delivery carnival. They will fail the person's individuality and humanity alike. If you appreciate this irony, then you are perfectly capable of understanding 21st Century Psychology.

The psychological community is likely to support the Commission. The Commission plan will create jobs and work for mental health professionals. Also, the Commission legislation is written by fellow mental health professionals, with a fiercely professional rhetoric that appeals to the culture of standard bearers and administrative savants that currently govern Psychology. Applying everything I've learned about social and personality psychology to this community, turning our lenses inward so to speak, I can trace much of 'who we are' and 'what we do' to dysfunctional social processes and socially facilitated knowledge out of tune with reality. The best treatment practices desired by the Commission cannot possibly be derived from the practices that currently promote research and training that itself suffers from ADHD. I am reminded of this long term facility for the care of the elderly in my home town. The floral gardens around the facility were always so vital and manicured, and the Chem Lawn truck could often be seen parked outside. No one had any idea at the time that residents inside the facility were being scalded by hot shower water or starved to death by desultory staff who forgot to feed them. Based on a superficial glance at its scientific and professional persona, Psychology would come off as looking fairly diligently organized and attentive. But this is only because it is trying to come to grips with substantial internal disarray, and the methods and products erected to conceal and compensate for the disorder achieves little more than that.

Cynics might argue that the concept of 'development' currently deployed by administrative savants is geared primarily to mass produce serviceable standard-bearers for their academic and professional communities. I am one of these cynics. And as a cynic, I intend to advance my argument that broad acceptance for the deindividuating and dehumanizing conception of professional development (as a schedule of resume-ready achievements that meet requirements for the preservation and advancement of a career) is antagonistic to our view of adult maturation.

fireflySun.com Report List

16 Points Memo: 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