Okay, so we all know we can't allocate media attention to research that explores big questions, because the much-maligned "man-in-the-street" will gloss over (or subsequently forget) such nuances as "while the picture is incomplete, the rather interesting results of this groundbreaking original research gives us a new way of looking at the mystery and suggests (albeit conditionally or inconclusively) that future research should head in such-and-such a direction." The only research worthy of media attention is that which comes fully certified. Of course, what kind of research are we talking about when we talk about formally unassailable research -- research impervious to criticism -- research that could not have been framed or construed or performed in any other way and that yields relatively conclusive results? We have to be talking about very small questions indeed, like the kind Greg Easterbrook of the Brookings Institution included in his NFL Network "Tuesday Morning Quarterback" (TMQ) column for the week of January 6, 2004:
"In a paper reported on by ABC News and the New York Times, researchers Herbert Clark of Stanford and Jean Fox Tree of the University of California at Santa Cruz describe years listening to recordings of spontaneous conversations to analyze the roles of "ums" and "uhs" in communication. Their conclusion? Saying "uh" means you need a second to decide what to say next, while saying "um" means you need a couple seconds. Um, Herbert Clark of Stanford and Jean Fox Tree of the University of California at Santa Cruz, doesn't everyone already know this? Please, please tell me this study was not funded by federal taxpayers." Greg Easterbrook also treats us to this gem in his February 8, 2005 TMQ: "Two researchers at the University of California at San Diego photographed dogs and their owners in a park, then asked college students to match dogs to masters. The researchers concluded that students usually were able to match photos of purebred dogs to masters, but, reassuringly, that "judges found no resemblance between mutts and their owners." Thus, two professors of psychology concluded, pet lovers "tend to choose a dog that looks like them, rather than owners and dogs grow alike over time." The study appeared in the journal Psychological Science , flagship publication of the American Psychological Society. TMQ's response: "Zo, editors of Psychological Science, vat deep-seated neurozis makes you zink zat how people pick dogs is ein zcientific issue, ja?" My worry: Geneva, the brainless Official Dog of TMQ, is a Chesapeake retriever, noble state dog of Maryland, and she's purebred. If I picked her because she looks like me, doesn't this mean that I look like --"
But this research gets attention, and so psychologists pursue such miniscule or frivolous questions to great acclaim, deploying their technical toys to dig up answers to very specific questions that either presumes a foundation in previous knowledge or that is actually based in one. NASA distinguishes between the challenges of building a mission to Mars around some technical-level questions (e.g. "Is there still water beneath the surface of Mars?") and the challenges of reconnoitering a Saturn about which virtually nothing is known. Why is all research in Psychology, even that which pretends to address a mystery like dreams, designed like a mission to Mars? Careers are solidified on the basis of such research, and these academics live to take their place on those peer review committees that will strike down the last remaining explorers to venture into the "big questions." Once every blue moon, however, psychologists will venture into a big question, usually with great folly, subjecting human-size phenomena to a microscope that also doubles as a meat grinder.
Case in point. Wyatt Ehrenfels takes issue with CNN.com's reporting of an article in the July, 2003 issue of The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences claiming scientific evidence for the proposition that 'opposites do not attract.' I caught up with Ehrenfels, who had this to say about the research.
"Where to begin? First of all, in my view, these researchers were not studying attraction per se, but relationship stability or longevity" remarks Ehrenfels. "Their participants rated, on a 1-9 scale, the importance of 10 characteristics in their choice of a long-term partner. On each of the 10 characteristics, participants gave their partners ratings similar to the ratings they gave themselves. Big deal. What of all that unrequited love? You know, the persons for whom the feelings were not mutual? For every 1 person who smiled on our advance, there are probably 30 who broke, or would have broken, our hearts. I doubt these people were represented in the study, and if they were, the study's findings, whether the 'unrequiteds' provided similar or dissimilar ratings, would have been powerless to explain the attraction. Err, professors Emlen and Buston, did it ever occur to you that you'd need a theory more complex than 'similarity-dissimilarity' to explain attraction. Probably not. So you simplified your concept of attraction to cut it down to the size of the 'similarity' construct.
We're all looking for a soulmate and think the soulmate we will one day find will feel like a soulmate by virtue of similar characteristics. But how do we know this if we have not yet found our soulmate. I don't know about you, but if attraction were that simple and predictable, we wouldn't need to invoke a word as marvelous as soulmate. The true soulmate often crashes the party that is our life and may even complicate things for us. I meet a lot of people similar to me on those 10 characteristics, and I am hardly attracted to any of them. I don't even like some of them. Some others I like but they arouse feelings in me no deeper than those I have for my favorite breakfast cereal.
"If you're one of these Cornell researchers, you're asking these participants to echo your own assumption that similarities attract, and that's all these participants are doing. Honestly, how can you expect these partipipants to assign different ratings for their desired partner than for themselves? I understand it can happen, but it is unreasonable to expect it to happen for more than a few participants and, if you are aggregating the data, that is, if you are interpreting ratings averaged across participants, then no, I would not expect to find dissimilarity of ratings for the characteristics included in this list. I mean, these are desiderata. Like I really want a partner to be less faithful and to be in poorer health than me. If you want to really research this issue, pick attitudes like introversion and extraversion and then actually measure these attitudes in a person to whom the participant is physically or mystically attracted. Because I just bet that while the participant may tell me he wants someone similar on this dimension, he may in fact find that he is being unwittingly led by attraction toward persons who are at the other end of the spectrum. Seriously! Recruit participants who reported having had a crush on (or mystical attraction to) some office co-worker or even stranger, then recruit those named, and then administer questionnaires to both parties blindly. I bet we find instances of attraction to opposites and, under some conditions, self-deception and by that I mean instances of attraction to opposites where the attracted individual falsely assumes similarity (and not just impenetrable mystique) in the target."
"Seriously, Emlen and Buston (the Cornell researchers) took a poll. That's as sophisticated and penetrating as this distinctly epidemiological research gets. They need to purge the word attraction from their paper altogether, maybe replace it with relationship stability or longevity, which is not an uninteresting subject in its own right, but it is clearly not what we mean by attraction within the popular culture. The use of the term here creates confusion and deceives the public into thinking that opposites do NOT attract, something this research never put to the test. Attraction refers to a process whereby individuals feel drawn to one another. It may be a physical attraction. It may be some intuitive impetus to what feels like a mystical union of sorts. It may also be other things. When I reminded academics of this broader and more relevant definition, I often received some response that questioned the importance of these phenomena. 'Why is that important?' they would say. That cavalier attitude is unfortunate for progress in attraction research but it does empower me as a critic. It increases my clout with the general public, among which such a response stokes sentiment that researchers are out of touch with human nature -- that they are indifferent to what is important to people about their own life experiences. These researchers were just looking for support for their evolutionary theory. "Peter and I are evolutionary biologists, so we're both interested in why people would have rules that essentially say, seek someone who is like yourself on many of the things you value. Well, if you do, you'll end up with a compatible mate, and less conflict in the relationship, and a better chance of a long-term bond and successful child rearing." But individuals are also driven by other more proximate imperatives closely associated with their own psychological balance and experiential breadth, that is, their mental health, personal development, and individuation. And without getting into details here, let me just say that oppositionality plays an invaluable role in these."
"I also receive a lot of mularckey about testability. Testability is important, yes, and the research I would have designed (which is even more sophisticated and substantive than what I recommended above) would have met the dual challenges of being both testable and relevant. I am not as comfortable or cavalier as many in the field about giving up relevance for testability -- certainly not at the outset or front end where our programs of research need to be exploratory, broad-based, open-ended, fact-finding, and free-wheeling. And my research would not have deceived the public with claims to "opposites NOT attracting." This is either a very stupid or a very irresponsible conclusion to draw from their data. They need to delimit their conclusions so they do not over-extend the facts. But HAD THEY DONE THAT, CNN.com would never have popularized the results on their news portal. But what amazes me is how some of those who responded to my critique could convince themselves that it is they who are doing something noble by pretending to lecture me that the truth is hard work. The truth, and if I am correct, it is that complementarity is a complex dynamic involving both similarity and oppositionality, is even more interesting and valuable than the proposition that opposites do NOT attract. I mean, show some curiosity here. If you've lost your car keys, it is wise at some point to put to yourself the question, 'okay, where haven't I looked?' What makes this ballyhooed study so dangerous is that people are inclined to believe it because, after all, these researchers appear to have data supporting a theory and theory supporting the data. What many consumers of research do not know, and this includes many psychology majors and graduate students, is that hypotheses such as 'opposites do not attract' and theories such as the 'evolutionary perspective' which appear to receive support from a particular research study can be shown to be inadequate or even inaccurate by an alternative or subsuming theory. In other words, if I modified the methodology and offered a broader or conditional theory (e.g., complementarity as dynamic interplay of similarities and differences), I may find results that disprove the conclusion that opposites do not attract. Notice here how this could be true even while the Cornell research makes no technical mistakes. The Cornell research is not being faulted for what it does wrong -- hell, when it does so little, there aren't many opportunities to make mistakes -- but it is faulted for what it fails to do right. The methodology is not flawed, but narrow, and this can be attributed to conceptual and intellectual shortcomings on the part of the researchers.
"My complementarity-as-complex dynamic is a modest claim not unlike those of other psychodynamic opponents to the opposites-do-not-attract literature, in whose models the personality is portrayed as a self-regulatory system of checks and balances. It is a theory that commands attention. There is a distinct possibility that attraction serves as a vehicle for compensation or self-correction, and that the opposite sex partner serves as a bridge to that part of our natures (and the world) from which we are alienated. It's not unlike combing hairballs out of a cat who developed mats from laying too much in this or that position and on this or that part of its body. We also show biases in the way we brush our teeth, which is what a dentist assesses when he or she rates the gumline beneath each of your teeth on a 1-6 scale. Well, the biases in our values and skills and other personality functions also have limiting and potentially debilitating effects on our capacity to adjust and grow. The trials and tribulations of pursuing the affections of an opposite personality, and the initial stages of such a relationship, as short-term or unstable as such a relationship might be, plays an interesting role in development. Often, an infatuation is not reciprocated and may not even be healthy, but I suspect that if we were to research these experiences, we would find that the object of such infatuations is a carrier of many qualities opposite those that comprise our biases and endorsements. Moreover, we may be able to establish a compelling case for the constellation (i.e. non-random pattern) of dissimilar personality qualities in the object of infatuation. As I mentioned earlier, I suspect attraction is an impetus to experiences that produce self-correction or self-development through complementarity. And I regret the absence of the complementarity construct from the lexicon of attraction researchers, who appear to be stuck on this static, one-dimensional, and non-functional conception of similarity.
"More importantly, good research is NOT driven by a political agenda (i.e., to cleave the public of its lore so that they as psychologists are elevated to gods among men). And I am not prepared to place the full responsibility for the article on the CNN writers. We do not cast buckets of bloody chum into the blue and then blame sharks for taking the bait. Psychological researchers enjoy a guilt-free instigation of such publicity by lazily, prejudicially, or poorly conceptualized research that subverts the truth and the public interest for the sake of a headline and a line of ink on a career-building CV. Their role in this is at best passive-aggressive.
"Talk all you want about the slow and steady integration of gilded units of research. Talk all you want about progress as the patient completion of a community puzzle. But we should not engineer a field to discourage or punish exploratory research that thinks outside the box (i.e., puzzle), which is the kind of research required to address complex phenomena like attraction or dreaming. Both my master's thesis and doctoral dissertation had no precedents, but if I designed them to fill some hole or extend someone else's work, I never would have happened upon original and worthwhile facts about cancer and dreaming. A sense of community is important, but when we manage a framework of expectations as stifling and stagnating as the ones that govern research and publication, we compromise the value of individual research, and regardless of how strong the links among research within an organized body, they cannot compensate for poor quality studies. As many zeros as we choose to multiply, our product is always zero. And while this is a tad of a hyperbole (for sake of illustration), I do believe that our research literature in many areas is "a product of multiple zeros." We have a puzzle precisely because we have shattered perfectly good mirrors. With respect to the attraction literature, our puzzle, once complete, will reveal at best a caricature of human relationships.
Why Love at First Site Is Important
"It's not the only attraction event, but one of many, and they are all important. People do the damndest things for love at first sight. It is an intoxicating state. It can throw people into a funk where they change the way they view themselves or present themselves to the world. Thus the NATURE of the person in whom one falls head over heels is given a paroxysmal and disproportionate influence over the course in which self-development will be deflected. An even more interesting proposition is that the NATURE of the person may not have been selected randomly. In other words, while we may think physical appearance is the impetus to attraction and the personality coincidentally accompanies that appearance, it is quite conceivable that the person fell head over heels in response to something they sensed in that personality (or that physical appearance and personality are part of the same image package). It is quite common for people to fall head over heels for someone of the opposite sex that others do not generally regard as beautiful. In fact, in many cases, the infatuated person will readily admit to not finding the person 'objectively beautiful' and in still other cases, the object of the infatuation will exhibit confusion over their capacity to elicit the strong desire). But there is a mythological, romantic, or sexual component to the attraction nevertheless, something that tugs on the person, driving the person to think, feel, or behave in uncharacteristic ways. The attraction transforms, with some noteworthy benefits (perhaps compensating for personal biases, deficiencies, and excesses with respect to our value system, range of experiences, and skill set) and some equally remarkable consequences (putting us in situations in which we are ill-equipped, maladjusted, or just plain destructive).
"Many researchers are too quick or willing to believe we cannot operationally define 'love at first sight' sufficiently to study it. I believe we can. We just can't be intellectually lazy or existentially timid. You say the truth is hard work? You're right. But it is conceptualization and fact collection that is hard work. The data analysis and observance of design principles is the easy part. And we definitely take the easy road. We bypass conceptualization directly for a slavish compliance with design conventions and templates, and we bypass fact collection for data representation and manipulation. We design research to lazily harvest numbers from masses of captive college students. These students provide us with ready-made numbers for our SPSS windows program, so we could pump out our one or two inferential statistics to adjudicate the binary (reject/fail-to-reject) hypothesis. Nothing is explored. The only thing it builds is a CV and our careers. The thinking in this field and the scope and depth of fact collection has woefully deteriorated.
Root of the Problem?
"The problem with the study published by these serviceable standard bearers is that they are unable or unwilling to take this phenomenon into account because it would force them to be flexible or original in their research designs."
Ehrenfels attributes the shortfall in research to a fundamental oppositionality in scientists themselves. "Too many scientists excel as technicians but fall very short in the conceptualization department. Now there are many factors that account for this trend, including anti-intellectual bias, existential timidity, cognitive laziness, and a mindless slavish compliance with the most simple or safe research designs. There is a template or cookie-cutter mentality at work that drives scientists to design research that is publication friendly and formally unassailable -- that is, likely to produce positive findings and impervious to criticism. It's risk averse and cosmetically quite scientific, but just as frivolous. The research impeccably deploys design principles and utilizes sophisticated statistics -- making no official mistakes -- and competitively panders to the lowest common denominator of a peer review committee -- but this execution cannot compensate for what is lacking in the way of depth of conceptualization and scope of fact collection. Thus we end up with journals upon journals of articles with scientific gravitas but without any solid foundation in the phenomena under study. Attraction is one of those messy research subjects that pose difficulties for scientists who have erected careers inside these sandboxes. This is not the kind of subject you can penetrate by surveying. In the CNN.com write-up of this study, I found the following passage particularly humorous:
"The scientist found men and women who rated themselves highly were more selective than those who did not. Attributes that individuals rated highly in others, they also rated as important in themselves."
As a participant, my survey results would have conformed to this trend; however, I seldom administer questionnaires to strange women before I decide to be attracted to them. Attraction is not a decision. It is a mysterious visceral reaction, and the image to which we are reacting is a mixture of physiognomic (i.e., physical) and psychological qualities. As an adolescent, I had a knaack of falling head over heels for women who are unlikely to appreciate me. There was a quality to their appearance that caused me to think they were sophisticated beauties, but they seldom elicited such a response from others and upon further investigation, I later discovered they were anything but 'sophisticated.' And yet this did not do much to dispel the attraction. So just what was I sensing in them? And just how am I able to pick up these qualities in these strange women? And what purpose does it serve? What are the short-term and long-term effects? These are the questions in which I am interested. These are the issues central to the issue of attraction. These are the issues the psychological researchers seem unwilling and ill-equipped to address. This is a far more complex issue. The scientists have treated this as such a simple-minded subject, that CNN.com felt it useful to post a poll of its visitors, inviting them to indicate with a yes/no response whether or not they thought opposites attract. Good lord! We might as well just publish the results of this poll in the journal Proceedings."
"Now personally, I do not know who to blame here for the sensational marquee-style conclusion 'Opposites Do Not Attract.' CNN.com or Cornell. I do understand that CNN likes a good (terse) headline, but I am also familiar with the crassness with which psychological researchers seek to dismiss or debunk what they dub popular myths. Every few years these vapid drones feel they keep having to categorically prove that the notion that opposites do not attract is a myth. It gives them a superiority over the layperson, which is critical because the layperson not only shares access to the subject over which the psychological researcher claims expertise (i.e., him- or herself), but arguably they have greater insight into their own material. For this reason, psychological researchers neglected to develop an emic tradition (i.e., the practice of delving deeply into a smaller number of individual participants) in favor of artifically rigorous methods and sophisticated statistics that require a mass of research participants and that cannot be penetrated by the untrained layperson. This creates a cosmetic expertise which, in actuality, alienates the researcher from his or her own wits and from the depth and scope of material associated with the phenomena under study."
"Having reviewed the literature as a student for a paper on the matching hypothesis, I was struck by the uniformity of the limitations with which the researchers skirted and dodged a complex phenomena, reducing it to an election day proposition which they can adjudicate as if with a yes/no type ballot. The motivated misconstrual of Occam's razor (simplest explanation as most rational explanation, as the explanation that best conforms to our prevailing worldview, or as the explanation that lends itself most neatly to that bureaucratizing and homogenizing knowledge production assembly line we call the nomothetic null hypothesis testing system) and the metaphysical interpretation of rationality is Procrustean at best. The effort subverts essential science (accuracy and adequacy of the facts) to other goals associated with a political agenda and professional persona. With so much old wine in new bottles, I have grown tired of flinching every time someone directs me to the literature. It was all child's play 10 years ago, and it has not grown up. If the Cornell scientists were at all responsible, their conclusions should only address marital stability and not attraction as a whole."
Elsewhere on fireflySun.com, Ehrenfels has proven skilled at exposing a similar fraudulence and corruption of psychological researchers investigating dreaming.
fireflySun.com Report List
16 Points Memo: Wyatt Ehrenfels
16 Points Page: Wyatt Ehrenfels
Psychology Careers: Careers in Psychology Wyatt Ehrenfels
Adventure on APAGS listserv: Wyatt Ehrenfels
Cancer Research Appendices: Wyatt Ehrenfels
Cancer Research Discussion: Wyatt Ehrenfels
New APA Journal Gives Ground to Wyatt Ehrenfels: Wyatt Ehrenfels
EPPP Study Materials Reflect Field's Biases, Weaknesses: Wyatt Ehrenfels
Questions Frequently Asked of Wyatt Ehrenfels: Wyatt Ehrenfels
Wyatt Ehrenfels Uncovers Dishonest Hiring Practices at Gallup Organization: Wyatt Ehrenfels
Why Google Is Too Sleazy for the Street: Wyatt Ehrenfels
Psychology Impaired by Materialistic Bias: Wyatt Ehrenfels
Psychology Curriculum Reveals Humpty Dumpty: Wyatt Ehrenfels
Wyatt Ehrenfels Reveals Hidden Odds & Obstacles to Graduate Admission: Wyatt Ehrenfels
Cancer Research Introduction: Wyatt Ehrenfels
Wyatt Ehrenfels Overpowers UCLA Psychology Professor: Wyatt Ehrenfels
Brad Jesness Deals Counselors & Therapists Some Major Blows: Wyatt Ehrenfels
Cancer Research Methodology: Wyatt Ehrenfels
Brad Jesness Deals Counselors & Therapists Some Major Blows: Wyatt Ehrenfels
Wyatt Ehrenfels Shows Solidarity for Kindred Critic Dennis Fox: Wyatt Ehrenfels
Cancer Research Results: Wyatt Ehrenfels
Psychologists Abuse Usenet to Stalk Its Critics: Wyatt Ehrenfels
Wyatt Ehrenfels Eludes Detection to Protect Key Allies: Wyatt Ehrenfels
Psychotherapist Scott Adams Offers Positive Commentary on Wyatt Ehrenfels memo: Scott Adams
Authors, Scholars Join Wyatt Ehrenfels: Wyatt Ehrenfels
Wyatt Ehrenfels Lays Out Two-Pronged Case against Dually Disordered Psychology: Wyatt Ehrenfels
Wyatt Ehrenfels Teams with Alice Andrews: Wyatt Ehrenfels
Wyatt Ehrenfels Teams with Psychotherapist Bill Arnott:
Wyatt Ehrenfels
Doubling Down: Wyatt Ehrenfels
Wyatt Ehrenfels Gambles by Splitting Critique: Wyatt Ehrenfels
Authors, Scholars Unite to Support Wyatt Ehrenfels: Wyatt Ehrenfels
Wyatt Ehrenfels Teams with Dream Researcher Gail Bixler: Wyatt Ehrenfels
Wyatt Ehrenfels Exposes Our Fear of Exposure Therapy: Wyatt Ehrenfels
Wyatt Ehrenfels Interviews with Internal Correspondent: Wyatt Ehrenfels
Wyatt Ehrenfels Says Psychology Professors Suffer from Professional Analogue of Borderline Personality Disorder: Wyatt Ehrenfels
Student Defies Psychology Professor's Warning Not to Correspond with Wyatt Ehrenfels: Wyatt Ehrenfels
Wyatt Ehrenfels Chides Daniel Dennett for Evangelical Atheism in Psychology: Wyatt Ehrenfels
Wyatt Ehrenfels Argues Psychology Graduate Education Not Worth the Money: Wyatt Ehrenfels
Psychology Professors Acknowledge Student Complaints about Curriculum: Wyatt Ehrenfels
Wyatt Ehrenfels Answers Critics, Campaign of Diversionary Tactics: Wyatt Ehrenfels
American Psychological Association Denies Listserv Members Access to Wyatt Ehrenfels OKTV Broadcast Report: Wyatt Ehrenfels
Wyatt Ehrenfels Talks about the Dissertation Experience: Wyatt Ehrenfels
Wyatt Ehrenfels Discusses a Methodology for Dream Research: Wyatt Ehrenfels
Wyatt Ehrenfels Defends Dreaming from Psychologist Negative Thinking: Wyatt Ehrenfels
Urban E-Zine Entelechy Publishes Wyatt Ehrenfels Essay: Wyatt Ehrenfels
Wyatt Ehrenfels Defends Dream Research against Vaunted Psychology News Group Moderator: Wyatt Ehrenfels
Wyatt Ehrenfels Customizes Probe to Explore Dreaming-Waking Interface: Wyatt Ehrenfels
Wyatt Ehrenfels Teams with Kindred Critic Dennis Fox: Wyatt Ehrenfels
Wyatt Ehrenfels Teams with Psychotherapist Elio Frattaroli: Wyatt Ehrenfels
Wyatt Ehrenfels Teams with Political Scientist John Freie: Wyatt Ehrenfels
Wyatt Ehrenfels Teams with Biologist John Hewitt: Wyatt Ehrenfels
Wyatt Ehrenfels Shows Support for Embattled Psychology Graduate Student: Wyatt Ehrenfels
Wyatt Ehrenfels Counsels Students on True Callings: Wyatt Ehrenfels
Wyatt Ehrenfels Amuses with Proposal of Psychology Graduate Program Insurance: Wyatt Ehrenfels
Wyatt Ehrenfels Says Corrective Statistical Procedure Emblematic of Psychology's Flaws: Wyatt Ehrenfels
Brad Jesness Target of Malicious Psychologists on Usenet: Brad Jesness
Wyatt Ehrenfels Teams with Medal-Winning Author M.J. John: Wyatt Ehrenfels
Wyatt Ehrenfels Critical of Vaunted Cornell Research Claiming Opposites Do NOT Attract: Wyatt Ehrenfels
Wyatt Ehrenfels Criticizes Berkeley Psychology Professors for Left Wing Bias: Wyatt Ehrenfels
Wyatt Ehrenfels Offers Links to Education and Appropriations Subcommittees: Wyatt Ehrenfels
Wyatt Ehrenfels Thunders Away at Psychology's Load-Bearing Premises: Wyatt Ehrenfels
Wyatt Ehrenfels Counsels High School Students on Choice of College Major: Wyatt Ehrenfels
APPIC Match Service Helps Veterans Hospital Psychologists Discriminate against Applicants w/ Disabilities: Wyatt Ehrenfels
Psychology Professional Development at Odds with Adult Maturation: Wyatt Ehrenfels
Wyatt Ehrenfels Republishes Work of College Curriculum Critic and FOX News Writer Wendy McElroy: Wendy McElroy
Wyatt Ehrenfels Likens Psychological Research to Premature Ejaculation: Wyatt Ehrenfels
According to Social Psychologist Wyatt Ehrenfels, Diversity Is Skin Deep, Black-and-White at University of Michigan: Wyatt Ehrenfels
Wyatt Ehrenfels Dismantles Psychology's Standard Defenses against Criticism: Wyatt Ehrenfels
Wyatt Ehrenfels Points to Hypocrisy in Terror Management Research: Wyatt Ehrenfels
Wyatt Ehrenfels Releases Revitalized Pocket Memo: Wyatt Ehrenfels
Wyatt Ehrenfels Publishes Critique in Revolution Issue of New Therapist Magazine: Wyatt Ehrenfels
Is Psychology at Odds with Itself?: Wyatt Ehrenfels
Wyatt Ehrenfels Says Campaign Not Intend to Offend Psychology Majors: Wyatt Ehrenfels
Why Community Access Television Is Coming Around to Wyatt Ehrenfels: Wyatt Ehrenfels
Overview of Wyatt Ehrenfels's Fireflies in the Shadow of the Sun: Wyatt Ehrenfels
Are Psychology Professors Prejudiced against Psyche: Wyatt Ehrenfels
Psychology's Science of Dreams Fails Science and Dreams: Wyatt Ehrenfels
Psychology Graduate Schools Blasted for Culture of Student Character Assassination: Wyatt Ehrenfels
Ode to Psychology Students: Are You Making A Major out of a Molehill: Wyatt Ehrenfels
Multicultural Fetish of Psychology Professors Belie Suppression of Individual Freedom, Ideas in Psychology: Wyatt Ehrenfels
Games without Frontiers: Ehrenfels Depicts Science of Psychology as ADHD: Wyatt Ehrenfels
Wyatt Ehrenfels Uses Evolutionary Theory, Natural Selection to Impugn D-Volving Psychology: Wyatt Ehrenfels
Wyatt Ehrenfels Reveals American Psychological Association as Lobbying Tour de Force: Wyatt Ehrenfels
Wyatt Ehrenfels Shares Bizarre Tale of Application for University Position: Wyatt Ehrenfels
Dreams & Dreaming Frequently Asked Questions: Wyatt Ehrenfels
Wyatt Ehrenfels Discusses Predictive Power of Tornado Dreams: Wyatt Ehrenfels
Wyatt Ehrenfels Releases Preface to Fireflies in the Shadow of the Sun: Wyatt Ehrenfels
In a Drugged States, New Mexico Legislators Give Psychologists Prescriptive Authority: Wyatt Ehrenfels
Fireflies in the Shadow of the Sun Press Release: Katheryn Moyer
Brad Jesness Exposes Malicious Stalking by Psychologists on Usenet: Brad Jesness
Psychology Majors Respond to Wyatt Ehrenfels fireflySun.com: Wyatt Ehrenfels
Wyatt Ehrenfels Offers Personality Taxonomy: Wyatt Ehrenfels
Wyatt Ehrenfels Offers Blueprint for Blighted Psychology: Wyatt Ehrenfels
From Position of Ignorance, APA Official Diverts Attention from/Urges Skepticism for, Wyatt Ehrenfels APPIC Discrimination Report: Wyatt Ehrenfels
Wyatt Ehrenfels Comes to Terms with Roiled Psychology Graduate Student and News Group Moderator: Wyatt Ehrenfels
Responses to Wyatt Ehrenfels Campaign to Reform Psychology: Wyatt Ehrenfels
Independent Publisher Offers Glowing Review of Fireflies in the Shadow of the Sun: Wyatt Ehrenfels
Wyatt Ehrenfels Teams with Psychotherapist Robert Roerich: Wyatt Ehrenfels
Wyatt Ehrenfels Says Psychology Professors Play Games with Rules: Wyatt Ehrenfels
Wyatt Ehrenfels Teams with Physicist Jeff Schmidt: Wyatt Ehrenfels
Malicious Stalking by Psychologists Abusing Psychotherapy News Group: Wyatt Ehrenfels
Wyatt Ehrenfels Reveals Groupthink, Abuse in Psychology Faculty Evaluation of Graduate Students: Wyatt Ehrenfels
Wyatt Ehrenfels Begins Sequel to Fireflies in the Shadow of the Sun: Wyatt Ehrenfels
Wyatt Ehrenfels Exposes Counseling Center Hiring Preference for Gays, Lesbians: Wyatt Ehrenfels
Wyatt Ehrenfels Diagnoses the Diagnosticians with the Shadow DSM: Wyatt Ehrenfels
Prominent UC-Davis Dream Researcher Dodges Wyatt Ehrenfels Draft of Reformers: Wyatt Ehrenfels
Wyatt Ehrenfels Teams with Management Consulting Maven R. Mallory Starr: Wyatt Ehrenfels
Overview of Wyatt Ehrenfels Dream Research with Cancer Patients: Wyatt Ehrenfels
Wyatt Ehrenfels Comments on the Short Falls of Teaching in Psychology: Wyatt Ehrenfels
Popular Psychotherapy All about Controlling Chaos: Wyatt Ehrenfels
Washington National Cathedral Site of Synchronicity in Novel by Social Psychologist: Wyatt Ehrenfels
Wyatt Ehrenfels Comments on the Value of a Degree in Psychology: Wyatt Ehrenfels
Wyatt Ehrenfels Offers Strategy for Self-Science of Dreams: Wyatt Ehrenfels
Wyatt Ehrenfels Attacks Psychology on Two Fronts: Wyatt Ehrenfels
Connie Vaughn Teams with Wyatt Ehrenfels to Explain Why She Is Not a Psychology: Connie Vaughn
Benjamin Willard Elected President of Wyatt Ehrenfels Fan Club: Benjamin Willard
Wyatt Ehrenfels Identifies Flaws in U.S. News Report of Psychology Employment Prospects: Wyatt Ehrenfels
