Breaking Ranks:

Psychology Students Defy Warning from Professors Not to Correspond with Ehrenfels

"The author of the spam that came in overnight to psylist regularly seeks out psychology lists and posts diatribes that are hostile to psychology - the recommended response is no response. I've seen him on other lists and it's not really worth engaging in discussion. That's not to say our discipline isn't without its flaws!"

fireflySun.com caught up with Ehrenfels for his reaction. "I understand the need for listserv administrators to manage the flow of information in their forum and to keep it favorable to their interests. Within their own fiefdom they enjoy control over a captive audience, where their opinions prevail unchecked, unchallenged, and unbalanced. I particularly found use of the word 'overnight' amusing, conjuring up images of a pre-dawn assault or break-in to an unguarded convenience store register. In actuality, I was anything but skulking in alley ways. The date-time stamp clearly indicates the e-mail was delivered at 11:17 AM, just minutes after it was composed. Contrary to what she would have you believe, you do not have to get up that early in the morning to slip by her. Once my message got through to the psychology majors at the University of Rhode Island, it was fascinating to observe the reaction of this professor. I mean, my announcement did not require a response from anyone, not from the students, nor from the listserv administrator. But the University of Rhode Island administrator issued this response with the subject header reading, 'Ignore the post.' And in that e-mail, she recommended her psychology students not respond to it. She lays out all her cards here, informing her students she does not want the issues I raise on my web site discussed. I doubt anyone asked for her input, as students can figure out what to do on their own, and yet this listserv administrator reacted as though the students were actually hungry for leadership on what to do with this diabolical e-mail, this 'SPAM,' which is a term she applies, rather abusively I might add, to a point of view that is not agreeable to her. But I also think she did herself a great disservice. Once she acted as though there was something to hide, the students took more of an interest in the e-mail. An analysis of activity on my web site over the weekend revealed many visits from IP addresses traceable to cities in the state of Rhode Island and many to the university's server. But her students most likely observe her taboo on talking fireflySun.com on the listserv, which means she will never be able to monitor or estimate the effects of my infiltration.

Ehrenfels received a similar welcome from an academic advisor managing a psychology listserv for students at Oklahoma State University (OSUPSYCH@LISTSERV.OKSTATE.EDU), reprimanding him for his post and informing him he had been unsubscribed. "It is not often I can work my way onto a university listserv for psychology majors, but when I do, the response tends to follow this pattern. This came as no surprise," remarked Ehrenfels. "But there were surprises."

Three days after having been unsubscribed from the listserv, he received an e-mail from one of the university's students, claiming the academic advisor admonished psychology majors to stay clear from Ehrenfels. The unnamed undergraduate clearly found the behavior of the academic advisor remarkable. "Oh Dr. Ehrenfels, how you have been sucked into the egotistical and self-centered black hole that is modern psychology," commented the unnamed student. "He was clearly intrigued by her irascibility," remarked Ehrenfels. In his view, it supported my characterization of psychology professors." In the words of the student, "I was interested in your email, and wanted to at least reply to give you some feedback, and possibly learn a little more about you, personally; and perhaps even open a line of communication with you for the days to come. I must admit that what initially intrigued me the most about your email was that it was quickly followed by an email from my academic advisor asking us all to not open any email from you. So, like a curious little human, I opened it right up and read away. I found myself smiling through most of your message, including the 16 doctrines, for several reasons. First, because I heard my own voice in many of the points that you were addressing, and I have to say that also, I was a little amused with your sensationalism at times. There were a lot of big words, and I almost felt at times like I was staring Jonathan Edwards in the face as he belted down his sermons from the pulpit. (Forgive me if I got the reference wrong, I was going for a Scarlet Letter/Salem Witch Trials type of time frame.) Note here that I mean no offense to you, and I can understand that a 'revolution' of the sort you are seeking absolutely cannot get off the ground without an energetic burst of zeal, so rock on. Anyhow, I enjoyed reading such a thunderous backlash to the profession that I have set out to enter. When people ask me what I want to do in psychology, my reply has often been something along the lines of, 'Well, it has changed many times over the years, but one thing that I know for certain is that there are a lot of changes that need to be made in the field.'"

Ehrenfels reported regretting that this was only one of 441 listserv recipients to break rank. "Only one student deemed the advisor's warning intriguing and incriminating. That is remarkable to me."

Unsubscribed from the list, Ehrenfels was unable to communicate with the psychology majors. But he was able to access the listserv's archives on the web. "I have absolutely no idea whether she even realized her messages were archived on the web. This is when I learned that unlike most listserves, this was an announcement list through which the advisor communicates one-way to the psychology majors. Every post in that archive was authored by her, except of course for my own." Ehrenfels also found additional comfort in statistics indicating that while 152 students opened his original post titled 'Social Psychologist Recruits Strategy Team Supporting Revolution in Psychology', only 38 students opened the subsequent post from the listserv administrator titled 'Do not open mail from Ehrenfels.'

Upon my request, Ehrenfels provided the URL for the listserv's archives, revealing both the number of students on the list and the raw content of the advisor's post, which corroborated the statement of the philosophy student:

"Please delete the message yesterday from J. Wyatt Ehrenfels and please do not open any further messages you may receive from him. He is not a member of our listserv and used blatant deception to gain access. Obviously if he had to lie to obtain an audience for his opinions, then he does not deserve to be heard. I cannot find any evidence of his credentials or university affiliation, and his behavior suggests to me that he is completely nuts. I think it is best if none of us corresponds with him. Thank you!"

I asked Ehrenfels to walk me through the statement and relay his impressions. Ehrenfels claims to have no recollection of whether he received an e-mail from the advisor requesting verification of his status as a psychology major at that university. "I do not remember now, and quite frankly, I did not remember then. I will tell you that it would not surprise me if I used deception to gain access, because I know that I will do whatever I can to reach the student population with this critical information. I think it is morally questionnable for a university to hide its students from alternative points of view. I do not recall whether I knowingly provided a false response to a dichotomous question like 'are you a psychology major?' or whether I took no steps to correct her assumption that I was a psychology major. I feel fairly certain that the reality lies somewhere in between. I sense that I knew I was misleading her and perhaps that I took advantage of an opportunity to allow her to mislead herself. But one of the things I have learned over the course of my tenure as Shadow Psychology officer is their flair for the use of pretexts. Here I feel I am being dismissed because I did not abide by the rules, rules to which I am not likely to adhere because they keep me out of the game. So essentially this advisor is persuading her students that the content of my e-mail, my message, is not worth addressing because it was delivered under false pretenses. This is an example of the devices to which they resort to keep their repressions and secrets from welling up like some fit of acid reflux. The statement that I was 'completely nuts' reflects poorly on her moral and mental compass. She is clearly abusing the trust of her students. Another common pretext, which was not used here, is 'sour grapes,' that my argument is invalid because it was motivated by disgruntlement. I can't think of anything more inane. It may explain one of the reasons for delivering the message, but it does not account for the logic of the argument. If you apply that same reasoning to rape, you would essentially be arguing that a rape victim should be ignored because her accusation of rape was motivated by her displeasure at having been raped. If I were this advisor, I would have issued no statement and I would have answered questions with a statement to the effect that I disagreed with the argument being advanced by the author. If I said anything at all, I would have made some attempt at appearing thoughtful and not hysterical. I am not sure whether her response indicates she is not prepared to address the argument, whether she is uninterested in expending any energy in addressing the argument, or whether she thinks she could discourage consideration of my argument altogether by casting doubt on my mental health. I have known academics over the years to be any or all of the above -- lazy, stupid, and disingenuous. But it is quite possible that the impetus for admonishing her students not to open my e-mail was simply fear. The only thing I find more unsettling than this is the fact only one student, very possibly the only student witha dual major, found this odd, or at least odd enough to break rank. The advisor may know her students well enough to know that she can take advantage of a naive and trusting and, most importantly, captive audience. Now I have no idea what any of these students really thought of all this, but if I had to formulate some impression based on the behavior I can observe, I would have to say they behaved like a herd of cattle, with one notable and noble exception."

Ehrenfels expressed his gratitude for the student. "He made a real difference here. I never would have known anything. There would have been nothing but silence." When asked why he thought the student defied his advisor's admonishment, Ehrenfels cited multiple reasons. "Well, here you have a person was clearly intrigued as I mentioned earlier. The advisor's behavior was morally and intellectually suspect. She is a university professor. The student is also a double major in philosophy, so he may be interested in thinking and also trained to think critically, skills and values I seldom find within the ranks of psychology. But there is also something quite compelling about hearing someone else like myself come along and break the isolation by expressing in a very public way views similar to your own. In his own words the unnamed student stated, "I dream of a Maslow-like combined knowledge base that includes what we now call science, psychology, religion and theology. I feel that modern psychology has been so hell-bent on making themselves appear scientific to the public at large, that they have stayed away from many of the huge questions that have not even begun to be answered."

The student will be happy to know that since their exchange in October, Ehrenfels has 'rocked on.'