E-Mail from Psychologist Illustration of Para-Skeptical Contempt for Dreaming
NOTE
Fireflies in the Shadow of the Sun available again at Barnes & Noble.com
In order to share a business with someone, whether we are speaking about a relationship between colleagues or between a professional and client, these individuals need to stand on a common infrastructure. They must share a language, but more broadly, they must share some fundamental assumptions if for nothing else than their mutual right to exist. The following exchange of e-mails with a group of psychologists on a psychology forum demonstrates the communicative failure to which the depraved body of knowledge in Psychology can be attributed.
Censorship
The attitude toward dreams in the academic culture amounts to nothing short of censorship and denies individuals interested in researching dreams equal and effective access to opportunities. The moderator of a popular psychology forum, whose antagonistic attitude toward dreams will be placed on display here as 'prototypical,'appends below her signature in each of her e-mails the following disclaimer: "Email responses to my [forum name] articles will be posted at my discretion." As forum moderator, she determines what she will or will not post for the public to view. In the past, I have sought an explanation from the moderator for failing to post my submissions, but she neglected to respond until I aired my grievance publicly in a high-profile forum she did not control, at which point she attempted to attribute the non-posting to a technical or chance factors. I submitted the prospective post as a test of the forum's openness, removing from the body all those elements a moderator (and later this moderator) could justifiably blame for as a basis for automatic-technical or manual-decision rejection. The prospective post was relevant to the forum (i.e., on-topic), contained no links, and tastefully, if not cheerfully, discussed its topic. The problem may have been that the author of the post was Wyatt Ehrenfels and the topic, was dreams.
It is my contention that the manner in which she comported himself in her management of my post to her forum can be perceived as similar to the manner in which academics sitting on peer review committees manage the processing of submissions for publication in trade journals. The peer review committees determine who is published. The individual peer reviewer does not have to rule on whether a submission does or does not meet publication standards, because not only is there widespread disagreement on this matter, but all but a few submissions will likely be deemed up to standard. Moreover, research in psychology (even that submitted to a specialized journal) varies widely not only in topic (psychology is a broad field and topics vary as widely as any group of randomly-selected individuals can be expected to vary in personality), but any group of research projects addressing the same topic are also likely to vary with respect to hypotheses and a host of factors making up the research method or procedure. With all these individual differences among research meeting scientific standards, which submissions win publication comes down to the personal preference of the reviewer. The two personal preference criteria most frequently deployed by reviewers include "Which research papers are most in line with the mission of this journal as I see it?"; "Which research papers appeal most to my scientific sensibilities?"; and "Which research papers offer conclusions I find agreeable or consistent with my belief system?" While reviewers do not hesitate to diagnose instances where the personality of the researcher or therapist might contaminate an otherwise sterile scientific process, reviewers also do not hesitate to exercise their own set of personal preferences in selecting the handful of research projects, from among the dozens-to-hundreds of viable submissions, that will be annointed. It is my contention that in this indefatigably competitive market, dream research is put at a decisive disadvantage. Although dream researchers can bolster their candidacy by making the research appear as scientific as possible (e.g., sleep lab equipment), these choices spell a unique kind of death for the adequacy and fidelity of research into dreams, resulting in highly circumscribed and conservative hypotheses about the brain or about information processing. The risk-averse studies are often stacked in the direction of a positive finding, regardless of how meaningless the finding is, as researchers are determined not to allow this broad phenomenon -- about which little is known -- and with so many variables -- some unaccounted for -- affecting everything from dreaming style to recall to reporting -- to minimize their chance at publication. The consequence of all this, is that the phenomena of dreaming is subject to a "scientific" regimen of managed neglect and distortion, which is perpetuated and amplified when you consider that the only employable researcher is a prolifically published researcher. Eventually, a para-skeptical contempt for dreaming itself evolves within the community of academic psychologists.
The problem, as I see it, is that the para-skeptical contempt for dreaming exhibited by the moderator (excerpts of e-mails to follow), is all too common within the ranks of university professors, a contempt which many of them, as reviewers for trade journals, can legitimately express as grounds for refusing a submission, but which more often is exercised quietly or tastefully disguised beneath a blanket statement "...in this competitive pool, there were other research projects more well-suited to the mission of this journal." I refer to it as a "para-skeptical contempt" because I think it deviates significantly from the balance of open-mindedness and skepticism that one would expect to find in a healthy and productive attitude to science. And publications mean everything to a scientific field like Psychology where the curriculum vita or "CV" is the functional equivalent of a driver's license and the publication our basic unit of currency. Not research per se, but published research, shapes our collective body of wisdom and reflects our science's only historical archive. (Think about that the next time it is brought to your attention that the human body is 98 percent water or that the universe is 95 percent empty space. The cumulative mass of aborted or unpublished research may prove invaluable to understanding patterns and relationships among published findings). Just as only those submissions that gather the "predominant preference" of a reviewer (and the lowest common denominator of a review committee) win a place in the journals, only those who are known as "predominant publishers" (i.e., those who publish most frequently regardless of nature or quality of research), win jobs. And only those who win jobs, in turn, perform research. (You can see evolutionary forces and specifically natural selection in operation here, with the organized body of knowledge evolving as the academic population evolves).
Those who attempt to research dreaming lose out, and consequently, dreaming itself loses out. The organized body of knowledge reflects a skewed archive on this particular subject, both where dreaming is neglected (i.e., where research is discouraged or research submissions denied publication) and where dreaming is distorted (i.e., where it is force-fitted into cosmetically scientific methodologies that inadequately address it).
Original e-mail from Ehrenfels (blue)
I posted the following e-mail to a psychology forum, thinking it rather benign, but drawing "para-skeptical contempt" from a spate of forum regulars, led by the moderator. Here is the original e-mail:
Since the development of normed and empirically validated systems for the interpretation of the Rorshach, there has been a shift in emphasis from the content of the responses (e.g., "I see an alien strangling my parents") to the characteristics of the responses (e.g., "response
draws from only part of inkblot and relies heavily on shading").
While I generally decry the neglect of the content, I think a
comparable approach to DREAMS might prove fruitful and might also
rescue for efficient use an objective data source from the scrapheap
of classical psychoanalysis. In my investigation of dreams in
terminally ill patients, I noted either blood chemistry or coping
styles discriminated between PROCESS and CONTENT ANOMALIES in
dreaming, between FICTIONAL and DISTORTED CHARACTERS, and between
AFFECT and IMAGERY. In a follow-up study, I might examine a number of
other dream characteristics in reference to coping styles, attitudes,
quality of life, and blood chemistry, which would include but not be
limited to:
I offer the above examples merely to point out that the possibilities
are only as limited as experience itself (i.e., dreams are
experiences). Anyone impressed by what we have been able to accomplish
with inkblots should be doubly enthusiastic about the opportunities
afforded by an assessment of the experiential characteristics of
dreams. Why? Because dreams are even more objective (more on this
later) and because dreaming offers more data.
This is not to say dreaming should be used as a diagnostic tool
once we've normed these characteristics for various medical and
psychiatric populations. There are too many other caveats. But the
dreams could prove heuristic and, more importantly, might lead to an
understanding of the relationship between three distinct components of
the person (a) a person's general attitude or specific coping style,
(b) the phenomenal unconscious (i.e., I use this term so as not to
appear to endorse a particular view of the unconscious [e.g.,
cognitive unconscious, Freud's or Jung's model] except to distinguish
it from the biological non-conscious]), and (c) somatic processes
(biological non-conscious or noumenal). Such studies might prove a
productive method of exploring the interface between mind and body and
developing an understanding of the human being from a general systems
perspective.
How Are Dreams "Objective"?
It is their objectivity that makes dreaming especially valuable to
research methodology. Research that examines the relationship between
two objective processes (e.g., blood chemistry and dreams) maximizes
sensitivity. Dreaming is objective in that the (arbitrary) will plays
no role in their creation. In patients with a terminal illness, the
stress further enhances sensitivity by removing from the life of the
patient any peripheral or frivolous aspects, mobilizing patient
functions around a central theme.
I continue to be astounded by the lack of imaginative empirical
research in this area.
I will paraphrase the moderator's response, relying sparingly on excerpts from her response, as the moderator, having seen the original version of this report (which featured the e-mails in their entirety), contacted my web site's host company citing copyright violation. I found this choice odd considering that I removed identifying information (name of moderator and forum) and also considering the forum's worldwide audience. Since viewing posts is not a privilege of membership, as on some less universal forums, one automatically receives before sending a post the warning that "your post will be seen by millions of people." This is actually the appeal of this forum.
The moderator treated my original post about dreams as an argument and dissected it, addressing it sentence by sentence and, in some cases, phrase by phrase. She did not like the first 9 words of my post ("Since the development of normed and empirically validated systems"), stringing it up like a punching bag, deploying in an extended paragraph a scathing indictment of Exner, only the first sentence of which I will provide below: "Uh, no. This is a claim of Exner. It isn't true just as the daa used by Johns in his EEG analysis (Neurometrics) isn't normed or available for research in the open, scientific community..."
Even after this first sentence, I am compelled to address her tangent, as she runs the dialogue well off-road. The program of research I proposed in my original post does not hinge on Exner's system being 100 percent tested and validated. Empirical validation was Exner's goal and this goal inspired and organized a certain methodology. I am merely stating that my goal is similar to Exner's and that this goal similarly inspires and directs one of my empirical approaches to dreams. But herein lies the problem. It is not uncommon for academics like this moderator to insist I meet them on their terms. They seldom address your points and you end up feeling misunderstood, mis-represented, and spruned for reasons that have nothing to do with you. Similarly, in the world of academic publishing, while a vast array of acceptable methods are available to a researcher (i.e., and a range of options concerning sampling, materials, and procedures), peer reviewers often treat their preferences/habits as the "highest standard" or "only method," and you were expected to speak the language of their own background and inclinations.
The moderator's tone deteriorated quickly, as she responded to my reference to a "shift in emphasis from...content...to...characteristics" with the following: "Had you read Rorschach's book on the test he developed, you would have found out that this has been the method since the beginning. Sheesh." I have to wonder what the "sheesh" was for exactly. I referred to the development as a "shift in emphasis," but she reframed my position here as one in which I claim that no one has ever attended to characteristics. Sounds like someone has come down with a bad case of dichotomous thinking. Therapists had been interpreting content for years, and while they continue to do so, the scientific and professional Zeitgeist has fostered a (1) more granular attention to the characteristics and (2) skepticism for the interpretation of content. Dare I say "sheesh." The moderator then lashed out with a long-winded exposition on the "problem of interpreting content," and she outlined what she considered a scientific method of coding responses to the inkblots, to which I replied, "Sounds fine by me. But again, this stretches the topic of my original e-mail well beyond its boundaries. This doesn't interest me much at all. And I wholeheartedly support the refinement of objective approaches. I have argued that my approach is objective, but as you imply later in your response to my e-mail, you deem dreaming inherently subjective and then deem any objective approach to an inherently subjective phenomenon as inexorably 'subjective.'
Incidentally, regarding the quest to sanitize Psychology of all subjectivity, I understand that I may not agree with another psychologist's interpretation. But I am also skeptical of cutting individual therapists off from their own wits. There is a great deal to be gleaned from the content of a response that is (a) based on an understanding of the client's situation (b) facilitated by a theoretical perspective that is not universal and (c) that cannot be known through consulting "objective interpretation guides." There will always be a use in this field for the intelligence of the professional individual, and I would hope that such an individual would be favorably disposed to exercise that prerogative where not inappropriate. Unfortunately, I also think that our culture is such that we are discouraging professional individuals in favor of individual professionals in a movement toward the ideal of a community of professionals. If the present is any indication, the future looks fairly bleak with respect to both the intelligence and the freedom of the individual professional.
But it gets worse. Following up on my statement "...comparable approach to DREAMS might prove fruitful and might also rescue for efficient use an objective data source from the scrapheap of classical psychoanalysis," the moderator replies, "It is a scrapheap. Scrap is one step away from crap. As Gould mentions, if Freud had not been an excellent writer, his ideas would have been seen for the crackpottery that they are. It is a matter of style over
substance. Only that and nothing more."
Yikes! I didn't mention I was an advocate of Freud. I simply cited him as one of two examples of interpretative approaches. In fact, I stated that I'd like to rescue dreams from Freud's scrapheap, and I agree that dreaming is there largely because of him, but not entirely. It remains there because academics will not stop treating everyone who mentions the word "dreaming" or even "dream research" as an advocate of "Freudian dream work." The moderator's response exhibits a paralysis and blindness with respect to my post such that wherever I am, she sees only Freud, a response analogous to that consistent with behavior that meets criteria for post-traumatic stress disorder. Granted, she may be strategically playing the Freud card to manipulate the perception of legitimacy, but one can be forgiven for wondering what Freudian abused this moderator as a child. If the regular participants on this forum slavishly fall into alignment with her depiction of me as Freud (the old 'switcheroo'), then she has in one motion (1) set our exchange up as a contest and (b) defeated me.
The next target for aggressive manhandling was my statement: "In a follow-up study, I might examine a number of other dream characteristics in reference to coping styles, attitudes, quality of life, and blood chemistry, which would include but not be limited to:
- consistency (i.e., dream juxtaposes unrelated elements from
: different periods and places in patient's life)"
With an interjecting quality, the moderator jumps into the middle of my list of dream characteristics by claiming this consistency is a quality of dreams in REM. "It isn't for dreams in nREM. Those are more like thought." Then she interjects after the next characteristic in the proposed list (i.e., continuity) with "Again, a quality of REM -v- nREM dreaming states," and finally after the quality dimensionality, she writes "See above."
These biological sleep constructs do not pertain to most phenomenological dream research methodologies. People who invoke them, like this moderator, are typically those who want to feign subject matter expertise in the area of dreaming to regain control in a verbal game of one-upmanship (but who know little about dreaming). The terms REM and nREM, while being delightfully technical, are also popularized, representing the extent of most people's familiarity with dreaming. As technical terms (coming out of biological sleep lab research), they possess a cosmetic appearance of scientific decorum. And so the moderator drops these terms like the names of Hollywood celebrities. But unlike the experience of having met a Hollywood celebrity, most people, including laypeople (i.e., the much-maligned "man in the street") have actually heard of REM and nREM sleep. I myself am aware that roughly 80% of all dreams occur in REM sleep and 20% in nREM and that REM dreams are longer, more vivid, more dramatic, and more bizarre (i.e., dream-like) as compared with the nREM dreams. But why would I be interested in nREM dreams to begin with? I mean, not only are these dreams not very, well, "dream-like," they are so infrequently recalled as to seldom turn up in my research. In fact, if we adjust the percentages above for recall, nREM dreams may very well fall below 5% of all recalled dreams. They are produced early in the sleep cycle (by and large within the first 2-3 hours after the person falls asleep), and so unless the person awakens during or immediately after a nREM dream (i.e., unless a nREM dream wakes them up, which is rare considering the fact they don't make an impression), they are infrequently recalled. Only the REM-like nREM dreams are vivid and emotional enough to wake you up. I hardly ever encounter the nREM dream in the course of my research, and there is no reason why I have to treat them as dreams.
As I mentioned in my original post (and in exactly these words), I offer the above examples merely to point out that the possibilities are only as limited as experience itself (i.e., dreams are experiences). Anyone impressed by what we have been able to accomplish with inkblots should be doubly enthusiastic about the opportunities afforded by an assessment of the experiential characteristics of dreams. Why? Because dreams are even more objective (more on this later) and because dreaming offers more data. I regarded the preceding statements as a message of hope and inspiration, that we can adapt our tools to the unique challenges of dreaming. But once again, the moderator buries her axe in Exner, stating that "No one should be impressed on what we have determined from the Plates, save in the possible miscarriages of justice when they were trotted into courts of law." Just in case we've forgotten what she thinks of the Exner system. Sheesh!
But she reserves her fomenting finale for my claim that dreaming is an objective phenomenon. I had stated that "It is their objectivity that makes dreaming especially valuable to research methodology. Research that examines the relationship between two objective processes (e.g., blood chemistry and dreams) maximizes sensitivity. Dreaming is objective in that the (arbitrary) will plays no role in their creation." The moderator, well, she was not impressed: "Unless and until I can observe, say, your dreams for myself, and any competant scientist can as well, the report of dream content will be under the control of a person's will, and likely be classed as subjective. See the definition of 'objective' 1b in Webster's 11th. Sure, their creation may be independant of a person's willful nature, but alas, the reportage is all we go on. We are taking their subjective reports at face value."
Webster is not an authoritative source on science, philosophy, or philosophy of science. The following is the definition (1b) to which she referred me: "of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers; having reality independent of the mind." But if she would check my description of dreaming again she would understand that I meant objective in a manner consistent with definition 3a "expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations." This is just like a card-carrying skeptic. She does not care to attend to (let alone address) anything that resembles what I'm seeing (3a), only that which resembles what's between her eyes (1b), and then she uses that as justification both for her reality and against my own.
It's statements like this that draw people once skeptical of my campaign into my campaign's fold. I often entertain questions like, "Unscientific? How are psychology professors unscientific?" And then I re-post to my web site statements like she just made about dream research being inherently subjective. The field needs to take a position on this. Though I do not want to hear it, it will reveal for all the world to see their position on dreams, and they will have to defend it. There are many academics who do not understand why their research is not winning places in our journals, even those who have demonstrated superior intelligence in adapting empirical methodologies to the uniquely challenging questions pertaining to dreaming. And it is largely because there is at least one person on an editorial review committee with a bias similar to her own, with that "para-skeptical contempt" ("give me that ol' time religion" where religion here means science) who would favor any OTHER research that meets the minimum standards. Why? Because we can't stick cameras in people's heads.
Sure, when we study dreams what we mean by dreams are "recalled and reported dreams." This is neither a revelation, nor is it damning to dream research. It is not like we can mistake these subset of dreams for dreams that are not recalled or reported. And while there may be other variables at work determining the nature of the recalled content, this source of error and alternative explanations dogs every field of research that draws some thought from a research participant. Look at respondents filling out a questionnaire. How do we know the person who chose "3" on a Likert scale did not intend to mark "4" or "2" (or God for bid, something else) if not for other factors specific to this moment and unknowable to the researcher? How do we even know "3" means to this respondent the same thing it means to another respondent, or to the same respondent taking the test in another room? How much thought was involved in his choice? Is this the same amount of thought brought to bear in answering other questions? What is involved in this thought process? Would we certify his choice of "3" if we knew what that thinking was? Does it matter? Probably not. All that matters to us is that he circled "3." Similarly, all that matters to me is the events described by the person as a "dream." I think you may blinded by the fact the "3" is a pre-determined stimulus shared by all respondents, a material configuration of ink on paper, to which the person responds and whose response is seemingly, only seemingly, controlled by our Likert scale. I can assure you the control is false.
So given there is error in any and all research, why should that disqualify dream research? Is it the bizarre nature of dreams, and the associated inscrutability, that inflates the perceived legitimacy of your objection to dream research beyond its true scientific merit? I think it is. But what is inscrutability? It is mystery. Science is supposed to solve mysteries and should gravitate toward mystery like light to dark and light heat to cold across a temperature gradient.
Below the signature of the moderator is the disclaimer I mentioned earlier plus the designation "atheist."
"A Little Help from My Friends"
Two other listserv members joined the fray to defend the vaunted moderator, and sentimental favorite, from the incursive 'Wyatt Ehrenfels.' Professor Thomas, for example, (the name has been changed to spare the person in question responsibility for his own words) claims as long as we cannot place cameras in people's heads, dreams are not objective and thus not appropriate subjects for scientific inquiry. "Firstly, there is the reporting of dreams, which would be verbal and always incomplete. Some objectivity is lost in that step. Next, there is the question of what to make of a dream, and subjectivity becomes a major component at that point." Like correspondence with most psychologists, the discussion deteriorated into a vapid and bitter dispute as to the meaning of the term objectivity, with Tom expressing his frustration with the challenges posed by dreams for his brand of science. In their signature harassing style, Tom's itemizing response read like a bill for every sentence or phrase he could deem an assumption. When I introduced a paragraph by identifying one of my claims as an assumption, it was further downgraded to an "appeal to authority": "This is an appeal to authority and, unfortunately, proves little." That is all he had to say in response to my rather lengthy exposition of the shared assumptions implicit in various theories of dreams. And, in another device used by these vain and evangelical skeptics, they harass you with constant requests for you to "define your terms": "Feel free to define your terms. I am having some trouble figuring out your second definition of objectivity." This...after I followed up his citation of Webster's definition of psychology (1b) with Webster's definition (3a). Anyway, I could bore you with the back and forth, but I think you'd find this vexing, so I will provide my response to sir Tom, from which you can glean a great deal about his complaints. Bare in mind as your read the following that Tom, the moderator of Tom's psychology forum, and a vast army of psychologists like Tom, are, as mentioned, psychologists. I ask that you bare this in mind because I think you'll find yourself questionning what these party-crashers are doing in the field of psychology, let alone dictating scientific policy:
Wyatt Ehrenfels on Theory and Proof
"Scientists are trained to avoid the 'p' word (proof) and to recognize the value of assumptions. With regard to proof: our science, for better or worse, is engaged in the practice of null hypothesis testing, where we use the word 'support' rather than 'proof,' referring to data which resulted in the rejection of our null hypothesis. No finding in this field is held in such high regard as compel use of the word 'proof.' And even where the modest goal of 'support' is concerned, psychology is mired in mixed results, and may never, given its paradigm (i.e., brand of science) free any truths from the tangles of conflicting or conditional statements. Given this, it is morally and mentally suspect for you to require not only that your adversaries shoulder the burden of 'proof,' but also that your adversaries provide proof of theories. This is what assumptions are...theories. Theories are useful in organizing research. And I believe you have forgotten the very fundamental distinction between a theory and a hypothesis. While theories inspire and inform the derivation of hypotheses, theories may and often are themselves untested or even untestable. It is not the role of a theory to be proven true or false. We evaluate hypotheses this way (and again, hypotheses are never actually proven in this field). So I think it speaks volumes that you should require that theories of dreams be proven before dreams can be considered a legitimate subject for study. Of course, I am glossing over the other obvious fact here, namely that if we had proven a theory of dreams, there would be no need for research. But these theories have not been proven, nor will they be proven, but there is a host of hypotheses about dreams worth studying, and these questions can only be addressed through, you got it, research! One of my own recent research successes would not have been possible without the guidance of a theory. And yet even after this compelling pattern of findings, I cannot claim proof for my theory. In fact, there is no need to do so. There is a satisfaction that comes from broadening or deepening our understanding of something. This understanding occurs even where we have not met your standards of proof. Even in the absence of support for our hypotheses, much can be learned from the data we collect during the course of our research. Our theories are revised or expanded to reflect this enhanced understanding. And in my opinion, this is what we do science for. Science has met its objectives where understanding grows, as evidenced by theories. Someone reading our exchange might 'assume' that you work without theories and assumptions and that you, with some regularity, produce scientific findings that meet standards of proof and utility. But none of this applies to you. For all your para-skeptical bickering, you operate from assumptions as well, at least implicitly. You may not be aware of them. But even when you deploy some template for research, simply plugging variables into a methodological formula, you are using tools that are based on assumptions. And by the mere act of conducting research, you are addressing a question that has not been answered. I highly doubt you have no reason (i.e., theory) for hypothesizing that you will find x result..."
Wyatt Ehrenfels on Subjectivity and Objectivity
"...The objectivity of which you speak is appropriate for an evaluation of methodologies, not theories and certainly not facts. You claim that dreams are by nature 'subjective' because we cannot place a camera in people's heads, I presume (you did not flesh out your thoughts on this) to determine whether the dream report is an accurate representation of the dream. Well, I will concede that all we really can study are dream reports, and that when we say we study dreams, what we really study are dream reports. So what? Just about every area of psychological research bares this problem. Take for example any research in which a person's thinking plays a determinative role in the observed and measured behavior. Do we really know what that person is thinking? If we asked the person, will he or she report his or her thoughts accurately and adequately, and in a way that we can verify? No. Because, as you say, we cannot put a camera in people's heads. Even when we direct or restrict participant participation by defining a range of acceptable responses (e.g., Likert scales), do we really know that a "3" circled by one person means the same thing as a "3" circled by another person or even by the same person when he circles "3" for another item on the questionnaire, or the same item on another day? For pragmatic reasons, we accept what our participants provide at face value, and where the research moves in a particular direction or provides an unlikely pattern of information, we deem the research worthwhile and go on with our business. The dream report contained no greater rate of error than any other behavior, verbal or otherwise, and if you continue to claim it does, I will have to turn the tables on you and ask you for some 'proof.' I doubt any statement you will provide in response will be any more than an 'assumption' or worse, an 'appeal to authority.' We can use dueling definitions of objectivity from the dictionary but in the final analysis, isn't a dictionary definition just an 'appeal to authority'? So we can split the semantic atom when it comes to what is 'objective,' but none of this really matters. By your definition, it's all subjective. Just look at all the decisions that factor into the execution of a research project. The entire process cannot be automated or manualized, and at various points in any research, there are load-bearing choices and assumptions exercised that reflect dispositional factors, preferences, habits, and yes, even hunches. As psychometrically sound as the Big 5 personality taxonomy appears, there is much more to this research than a factor analysis of the natural language dictionary. There is a lot of subjectivity there. Some of the subjectivity is reliable. Yes, you heard me. While you claim subjectivity spells death for reliability and validity, subjectivity can be systematized and replicated. At various points in the history of the Big 5, we have attempts at reliable subjectivity and we have attempts to break with it, and in all cases, it would appear that we still end up with the same indefatigable five factors. Science marches on. In dream research, we can minimize error by providing participants with explicit instructions on what to classify as a dream and how to report it in their diary materials. And I can provide these instructions in my research paper for other dream researchers to follow. You claim that the nature of all dreams, not just lucid dreams, is disputed. Well, so is the nature of objectivity itself. And so is the science we practice. Our science is a brand of science, or paradigm, that is not trans-disciplinary. Now there are trans-disciplinary elements of our science. We refer to this as essential science or, the scientific method. It is a relatively open framework, and the less we contaminate it with institutional requirements that have no real standing in science or nature (but in social necessity, convenience, and yes, even fashion), the more we introduce into our science a source of subjectivity to which many critics refer as social constructionism. So the whole objectivity argument is a red herring, and that red herring will be your albatross."
fireflySun.com Report List
16 Points Memo: Wyatt Ehrenfels
16 Points Page: 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 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
Onion of Obstacles Awaits Psychology Majors: Wyatt Ehrenfels
Wyatt Ehrenfels Depicts Psychology Prejudiced against Psyche: Wyatt Ehrenfels
Newsweek Report Surveys Dream Research Wasteland: Wyatt Ehrenfels
Wyatt Ehrenfels Assails Culture of Student Character Assassination in Psychology: Wyatt Ehrenfels
Wyatt Ehrenfels Depicts Psychology as Bloated Minor: Wyatt Ehrenfels
Multicultural Fetish Belies Suppression of Individual Freedom, Ideas in Psychology: Wyatt Ehrenfels
Wyatt Ehrenfels Depicts Psychology Research as Games without Frontiers, ADHD Science: 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
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
