'Professional development' is a term we hear a lot. But what does it mean to develop professionally and how does one reconcile one's development as a professional with his or her maturation as a human being? Cynics might argue that the concept of 'development' currently deployed by administrative savants is geared primarily to mass produce serviceable standard-bearers for their academic and professional communities. I am one of these cynics. And as a cynic, I intend to advance my argument that broad acceptance for the deindividuating and dehumanizing conception of professional development (as a schedule of resume-ready achievements that meet requirements for the preservation and advancement of a career) is antagonistic to our view of adult maturation. Nowhere is the disparagement of the personal more evident than in our current view of professionalism. Maturity, humanity, and individuation have come into conflict with our postindustrial mentality, a mentality that locates a person's most significant activity outside the self and therefore questions the possibility of self-realization through science (and conversely, science through self-realization). The self-indulgent ruminations and readings of the classic scholar and the exploratory research of the detective are treated as a lamentable dalliance and a shunning of obligations that are considered socially productive. Is it any wonder a university mantra like "the pursuit of truth" could be abandoned in favor of "commitment to excellence," measured in degrees of compliance with policies and procedures?

A Historical & Jungian Analysis of Professional Development

The ancients, with an eye to individual development, catered to the well being of an upper class by an almost total suppression of the great majority of the common people.

Then, Christianity happened. The chief value of the individual was an imperishable soul.

Democracy happened. Individuals had certain inalienable rights as equals. It was no longer possible to suppress an inferior majority for the freedom of a more valuable minority. The widely accepted desideratum, the preservation of inalienable human rights such as the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, then blossomed and branched into what some critics and cynics decry as the business and politics of entitlement, whereby any individual is guaranteed access to any and all opportunities, which include not only the hedonic amenities associated with Western society, but also equal access to any livelihood defined as an occupation. Forget about butchers, bakers, and candlestick makers. Every U.S. citizen is encouraged to covert careers as doctors and lawyers, and career-driven individuals who selected these goals cafeteria-style from the College Career Day buffet line, are as viable as suitors to these professions as the individuals who've known since childhood their true calling, their metaphysical/congenital connection to the subject matter, and their truly intrinsic interest in this vocation. Just what can be wrong with that? Well, even though I might concede that no better system exists (and there is no blueprint for meritocracy), I think it would be productive for us to concede that this approach is not without its costs. With so many people rushing the fraternity that is academic and professional Psychology, changes have to be made to insure we can process so many applications … changes will have to made to insure all that research being produced can be reviewed, evaluated, and consumed in an efficient manner. In short, standards are developed. And while the standards suggest quality-related objectives, I submit they behave less like quality improvement safeguards and more like simple conventions designed to provide a common language. In other words, they function more like traffic lights at intersections, regulating the overflow of individuals laying claim to the same road system (and sometimes working at cross purposes). The standards standardize, and they create a language for an egalitarian community that would let anyone in providing he or she can out-perform or out-last his or her competitors at a game of Simon Says. Who can best adhere to the manual and, with the right attitude, embody its spirit and bear its standards.

Time for a gross analogy. When employers fear receiving an unmanageable stack of applications for a position, what do they do? They may develop heuristics – algorithms – to sort through and eliminate applicants from consideration. This may mean only reading the first 50 to arrive. This may mean reading only those applications that are less than 2 pages in length, or more than 6. I have even heard one employer use resume color and paper weight preferences to widdle down that stack. Other employers outsource the drudgery to employment consultants. They hand a group of specs to the headhunter, and the headhunter looks for resumes that look like the list of specs. There’s no subjective assessment of potential or maturity and no search for equivalent or comparable experiences. Just find me a sharpshooter who done this same job for the past 10 years. Academic CVs are no exception. Faculty search committees cram the applicant into some formula that weights the number of articles published within small increments of time by the reputation of the journals in which they were published and the size of the external funding paying for the research.

Unfortunately, the aristocratic notion of callings and vocations, reminiscent of feudal territories and divine rights, have no place within modern commercial democracies. As if by the hand of some Jungian paradox, it is these modern commercial democracies that are fertile ground for the mass production and certification of interchangeable doctors and scientists for socialization into increasingly homogeneous academic and professional "communities." And it is within these managed communities where arbitrary and superfluous policies & procedures behave like prejudices to adversely impact the interests and careers of those with true callings. Moreover, these communities, fostering what Jung calls a collective culture over an individual culture define professional development and regulate professional milestones in such a way as to not only hinder the individuation and adult maturation of its professionals, but to make survival and success conditional on the unconditional surrender of our freedoms and wits to the community. As you might expect, the effect of this homogenization and mediocritization on knowledge production is not equally distributed across all classes of phenomena within Psychology, as those phenomena requiring thinking that is fluid, flexible, and independent (such as dreams) suffer the brunt of the damage. And the individuals who suffer most: those who address a Big Picture Question by bringing a considerable degree of reading and reflection to bear in the formulation of an open-ended theory. With an expeditionary spirit, they design a humble "we don't know much of anything" method for collecting facts of considerable scope and depth to progressively pare down a Big Broad Theory to what is real and what is right. They start big, and with their hammer and chisel they chip away at the block of marble, guided by glimpses of the form hidden within. But the professional trappings of modern Psychology (and the attitude of modern psychology professors) work against the explorers, visionaries, and detectives with this temperament, this talent, and these tools, abandoning them in favor of the career scientist who pretends to know more than he does in order to submit a circumscribed, frivolous, and risk-averse 'hypothesis' designed to plug some miniscule hole in the 'organized body of knowledge' on a publish-at-least-once-a-year-in-a-reputable-journal timetable conducive to a career. Such a myopic brand of science is admittedly predicated on starting small, small in the sense of both scope and significance, and hopes one day to fashion a wall out of a critical mass of bricks.

With the freedom to pursue any and all opportunities comes the freedom to conform with what is required to attain or win the fruits of those opportunities. I am talking here about the freedom to conform with requirements for membership in professional classes, and many of us succeed by making this membership an emphatic priority … all other considerations secondary. But is this freedom? Where is the freedom in socialized professions? Is it in willingly surrendering a part of ourselves in order to gain access? Is it in denying access to those who fail to remain competitive in the sport of self-sacrifice? Is it in denying all researchers the inalienable latitude -- permitted under the terms of fundamental science – to explore the facts of their subject matter in a manner dictated by their conscience, demands / cues of the subject, and anything else that smacks of individual differences? In order to gain such access, we have to willingly surrender a part of ourselves. We have to surrender not only our individual needs and natures, but part of our functionality as human beings. We exchange our own individual development for the sake of contributing to the development of collective culture. While we may live in a democracy and enjoy the rewards of self-sacrifice the greatest democracy has to offer – a higher standard of living … status … recognition – nothing should distract us from the fact that we have socialized science and academics at a cost to ourselves and many classes of phenomena in our charge.

Just how was this collective culture built? Over the centuries, we introjected the method of suppressing the majority. While antiquity witnessed the suppression of a majority of whole persons, modernity witnesses the suppression of psychological functions within each person. Of the functions that orient us to self and world (e.g., Sensation, Thinking, Feeling, and Intuition according to Swiss psychiatrist Jung) only an extraverted application of Sensation and Thinking (in that order) is valued within our science. The other functions are subjected to what may be called a subjective slave culture. Inasmuch as the favoritism toward extraverted Sensation and Thinking (what Jung calls one-sidedness) is valuable to society in managing communities and technologies, it is detrimental to the individual, in whom all functions, intrinsic to the very process of perception itself, has an instinctual imperative. "This detrimental effect has reached such a pitch that the mass organizations of our present-day culture actually strive for the complete extinction of the individual, since their very existence depends on a mechanized application of the privileged functions of individual human beings. It is not a man who counts, but his own differentiated function" (Psychological Types, 1921, p. 72). The relevance of this problem is quite apparent for any institution founded on a mission to better our understanding of ourselves and our fellow man (Psychology). Psychology's professors, students of human nature, are required to surrender their own freedoms and wits as investigators in exchange for access to the profession itself, to its jobs, and beyond that, for access to its one-size-fits-all sources of validation, guidance, and identity. Over the course of training generations, as the psychological community grows more homogeneous and self-replicating through its socialization pressures and selection committees, the less varied the pool of traits and perspectives, the less deep its talents, the fewer the wits to cede, and less the freedom to choose their abrogation. An ever-widening nucleus of superfluous and arbitrary SOPs for knowledge production have less a standing in real science and nature than in social necessity, social expediency, and social control...in institutional desiderata. The norms themselves by their nature and by their uniformity as norms, are designed to help manage the community by facilitating communication, streamlining expectations, and "templating" the products of individuals with a heavy common denominator so they all fit together like puzzle pieces. Combined with an erosion in the talent pool and the restriction of natural variability, this social artifice imbues its own products (i.e., organized body of knowledge about human nature) with a similar pestilence. You can't manage this community and domesticate its human sources of serendipity / discovery without marginalizing and distorting the subject matter itself. If we strip away the self-serving gloss, the cosmetic science and professionalism, we reveal that nothing substantive, nothing truly scientific, and nothing human, lives beneath. We only need to glance at the body of research in the area of dreaming to appreciate the caricature here, the gulf between the facts/possibilities and Psychology's knowledge. So whether you're a scholar, student, research subject, (or even human being about which psychology will draw generalizations), a gulf exists between what you are and what you represent, between what a person is as an individual and what a person is as a collective being. If you want to survive or succeed in Psychology, you have to sacrifice your personal development, and the development of real knowledge, for the development of your profession as a social institution. You will allow yourself to be (socially) constituted by them, and they will repay you in units of professional development, which is not a genuine personal development, but a professional identity (a curriculum vita) and mobility.

"Should he excel, he is merely identical with his collective function; but should he not, then, though he may be esteemed as a function in society, his individual is wholly on the level of his inferior, undeveloped functions, and he is simply a barbarian, while in the former case he has happily deceived himself as to his actual barbarism (ibid, p. 74). But this one-sided development must inevitably lead to a reaction, since those functions which are devalued cannot be indefinitely excluded from participating in our life and development. The time will come when the division in the inner man must be abolished, in order that the undeveloped may be granted an opportunity to live."

Jung's functions have actually become the basis for the popular Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. A static measure, its use is limited to its capacity to catalogue individuals in 16-dimensional space. However, an understanding of the MBTI's theoretical cradle enables a dynamic and developmental analysis. For each person, there is a function that is most valued and developed, and it is through this function that the person orients and adapts him- or herself to self and world. If one of these functions is extraverted Thinking or extraverted Sensation (with the other serving in an auxiliary role), the individual has an opportunity to capitalize on a natural fit with the vast majority of occupations in this world. Those for whom there is a congenital predisposition to differentiate another function (or orient Sensation and Thinking in an introverted direction) will have to work harder to refine the functions sanctioned by society in order to claim a place within it. Jung estimated that less than 5% of Americans are true introverted intuitives and that introverts themselves are rare here. But the MBTI would be less popular if the results actually reflected this reality, and so the test inflates the number of individuals falling on the introverted side of center. If you talk to many psych profs – and most of these folks have no idea Jung is even connected to the MBTI let alone any familiarity with his underlying theory – they would proudly boast their status as an INTJ because that’s what they’ve heard academics and intellectuals are. The problem is that modern academe (or at least departments of psychology) is no longer a bastion of contemplation and erudition. Modern professors do very little reading and even less thinking compared to their scholarly predecessors. This is owing partly to the fact the requirements do not leave them much time, but there’s also the matter of temperament. In an evolutionary sense, the academic community selects suitors who are skilled at what it takes to succeed in the academic community, and thinking and reading grate against these requirements like fingernail on blackboard. Ironically, today's psych profs subject real INTJs among them (students / peers) to the most rude repression, repudiation, and remediation. With its emphasis on an objective (i.e., one-size-fits-all or traditional) formula for science and a highly developed sense of external reality (except where that external reality includes your inner reality), psych profs are by and large Extraverted Sensation types with auxiliary Thinking (EST). So what does this mean?

Professional Development through the Lens of Child Development Theory...Plus A Baseball Analogy

In explaining the individuation of the infant from mother, psychologist Louise Kaplan in her child-rearing book Oneness and Separateness utilizes a set of developmental constructs (i.e. object-relations theory of Margaret Mahler) similar to those of Wyatt Ehrenfels (i.e. Analytical Psychology of psychiatrist C.G. Jung) in his insights into the individuation of the career psychologist. Using an analogy drawn from a dream about a baseball game, Wyatt compares both true professional development (and the day-to-day dynamics of consciousness) to movement around the bases. "As a batter, you first face a pitcher. As a successful base runner, you stand on second base to face your point of origin in home plate, and ultimately you return home one run greater. Each step of the way, you get a glimpse of the place from which you will ultimately view where you've been."

Confining my remarks to professional development for a moment, let's explore this analogy and the remarkable resemblance to the object-relations theory of Mahler. (In reading Kaplan's book, I was rather astonished by the influx of insights upon replacing words like "infant" or "child" with "student," "parent" with "professor" or "profession," and "world" or "environment" with human psyche). At the time a student declares psychology his or her major, he or she is usually not thinking about careers and reputations -- about publications and CVs -- but about his or her own childlike curiosity. The student at this stage, unacquainted with an approach to science that concerns itself with how numbers behave, is more interested in why people behave. When I read Kaplan describe the primitive oneness of the infant with the mother, I am reminded of my own years as an undergraduate psychology major, blissfully disposed to accept everything I was taught. I consumed my texts like so many jars of Gerber baby food. I spit up morsels of exactly what I had read, and to the extent I regurgitated the texts undigested (i.e. from the mouth and not from the stomach), my paternalistic professors smiled on my cooing with As and promises of a great future. In this period of unconditional love, I was rewarded for hard work. Appreciated as a formless newborn, cute by virtue of my universality, no one scrutinized me for distinctive features.

And then came my years as a graduate student. The original parents (my psychology professors) were replaced and I came to view myself as having been adopted into the the universe of psychology departments (known by such terms as the "profession," "discipline," or "field"). By this stage, I look back upon my primeval oneness knowing I have reached some developmental milestones in receiving good grades and solid letters of recommendation from my original parents. Now viewing home plate from second base, I relish my departure from the unconditional love I enjoyed during my undergraduate years, knowing that to remain in this family, I must compete with my siblings for the title of "good son" or "good daughter" by demonstrating a superlatively skilled and spirited following of parental instructions. Here I learn to share expectations but break from the pack in my execution and celebration of these policies and procedures. I embrace the challenge of registering individual achievements within the profession.

As I am not fully autonomous, not fully socialized, I recognize that my success is determined by the guidance of others and wholly bound up with their approval. At this time, graduate students view themselves as distinct from their parents (professors), but they also view themselves as residents of a Psychology universe that is one with their professors. While their individual careers may have budded off from the careers of the parents, Psyche and Psychology remain fused, as do their professional identities with the overall reputation of Psychology and with those individual professors who mentored them. These graduate students are joining extracurricular research teams, jockeying papers as sixth authors of four-page publications, all in the hopes of adding a line of ink to a templated CV and in the hopes a letter of recommendation from their professors here will get them loved by professors elsewhere.

It is at this stage where many graduate students become fixated for life. In the language of my sports analogy, it is at second base where many psychologists strand themselves and each other. So how would I characterize this resistance to mature as adult thinkers? Simple. Within a fiercely competitive environment (there are hundreds of applicants for every tenure-track assistant professorship, hundreds of submissions for every slot in a trade journal), those who survive and flourish in the field of Psychology are those who discharged its ever-widening nucleus of arbitrary and superfluous requirements with great skill and celebration. Many of these students who earn most-favored psychology nation status, unlike me, would never use a term like "requirement" to refer to their brand of "science" and livelihood, and many more shutter-and-gasp to to hear words like "arbitrary" or "superfluous" prepending it. The reinforcement of professional milestones in these middle years and their socialization into academic culture stunted their true professional development. Overnourished by rewards for demonstrating their indoctrination into the policies and procedures, particularly by their ascension into the ranks of "scientists" and "professionals," they never step outside the academic community to examine it. And this actually makes them poor scientists, confounding "data" for "facts", "hypotheses" for "questions", "theory" for "hypotheses", "theory" for "methodology", and most importantly, phenomena for the language of the operations used to study it. They approach the phenomenon they study as if it were another interchangeable "variable" in a statistical formula (see ADHD Science for a comprehensive discussion of Psychology's implosive scientific policies). They sign on to a routine grounded in their alienation from both their own wits and the facts comprising the phenomena under study, having surrendered their wits and freedoms in exchange for membership in a professional community -- for access to sources of guidance and validation that fit all researchers -- for access to sources of scientific methods that fit all phenomena -- for access to sources of self-_expression that fit all trade journals. Like coats checked in at the door to a restuarant, their wits and freedoms are seized at the psych dept door, in some cases quite willingly (if the graduate student selection committee did its job), and in other cases, the doctorates at the other end of the tunnel might be quite surprised to learn they had forgotten to retrieve their belongings on the way out. Among the socialized inductees into academe, once-secondary motives and subsidiary goals acquire a functional autonomy, if not primacy. The behaviors leading up to the publication of a paper become self-reinforcing, serving no higher purpose, supporting no appetites other than those for 'love' and power, resulting in an epidemic of idle thrashing within a token intellectual economy. Measuring their scientific success in career metrics and units of conformity, compliance, and conventionality, their values create an inhospitable environment for an adequate exploration of the human condition, seeking instant gratification through the stilted harvesting of data that support on a career timetable highly circumcribed, frivolous, and risk-averse "hypotheses". With an excessive, gratuitous, and precipitous imitation of the most cosmetic features of harder sciences, each paper is a push to formality, with a cosmetic finishing of confirmatory rigor and control. Such a climate is inhospitable to the cognitive flexibility and form-fitting attention to phenomena required by sound exploratory research, perceptive detective work, and the conditions for discovery. To borrow constructs from Jim Marcia, this pseudo-professionalism results from foreclosures designed to escape identity diffusion, whereas a healthy attitude toward science is predicated on a genuine achievement of identity after a requisite moratorium.

Within the unsustainable science of Psychology, the confidence and curiosity that make it possible for a scholar to respond ponderously and playfully to a phenomenon, with due sensitivity, have been jeopardized. Modern professional attitudes, retro-fitted to the academic community, conspire to interrupt the elemental dialogue between student and nature -- a dialogue that insures the relevance and humanity of our science.

On normal development, Kaplan writes, "The child who has a good-enough self-image and mother-image isn't overwhelmed by his bad feelings. He doesn't begin to suppose that he has to be a perfect all-good child or a clinging, helpless nonentity in order to protect himself and his parents from his awful wickedness. When such a child becomes an adult, he won't reject someone he loves and exchange her for another the moment she no longer is there to provide him with satisfaction" (p. 30).

However, the chronically underdeveloped psychologists-in-training are overwhelmed by the uncertainty surrounding the rightness of what they are doing and its profitability with respect to career development. And so they find peace in the mindlessness of shared expectations and in their celebration and enforcement of social conventions that masquerade as scientific "standards." It is their participation in (their contribution to) this mass conformity that they find so therapeutic, so medicating with respect to the doubts, the dissonance, the potential disharmony and diversity for which they have such a low threshold. They must be all-good students or clinging, helpless instantiations of these norms in order to protect themselves and Psychology from their awful primeval urge to unconventionality or eccentricity and similar urges in other suitors or imposters who pose a threat to the professional solidarity that is a polished sublimation of the original "primitive" oneness they enjoyed as undergraduates. (See Student Ethics & _Evaluation for a comprehensive discussion of violent methods of holding others to this same standard of goodness). When such students become academics or professionals, they unfortunately do reject a phenomenon or approach they love and exchange it for another the moment it no longer supplies them with a harvest of positive, publishable findings. And while Kaplan speaks of the healthy child's "emotional acceptance of the idea we are neither saints nor demons but whole persons capable of ordinary human love and ordinary human hatred," the underdeveloped professionals, unable to find a healthy balance between open-mindedness and skepticism in their science, see a world split between "good scientists" and "bad scientists." In the words of Kaplan, "if we can't be whole this way, the only way to protect the cherished parts of ourselves from the unwanted or bad parts is to split them apart and to keep them fenced off." This is evident in their use of science as a tool of skepticism rather than exploration and their use of professionalism as a tool of managed solidarity rather than true relationships -- of disqualification, imprimatur, and hazing rather than true equality, collegiality, and inclusiveness. The underdeveloped psychologist sees in the healthy pride and unconventionality of his well-developed counterpart a form of narcissism, arrogance, and even hostility.

Stranded on second base, these psychologists remain locked within a brand of fierce professionalism, where they lose touch with vital sources of productivity locked within their estranged humanity (home plate). Their only hope of retaining their way of life and their standing hinges on cutting off their well-developed counterparts from their vital sources of productivity, pathologizing or portraying as unprofessional their humanity along with all idiosyncratic or serendipitous sources of science."

When career-driven students are required to sacrifice their freedoms and wits in exchange for membership in a professional community and for access to its one-size-fits-all sources of validation, guidance, and identity (or when students are selected from among applicants based on characteristics associated with a propensity for these sacrifices and adjustments), these students stunt what is true professional development. Their development as mature adults is also stunted, especially when these students become professors and have the power to demand the kind of consensus, conformity, and compliance that negatively reinforces their narrow worldview and therapeutically allows them to avoid tripping over Heaven & Earth's supply of alternative views and possibilities, all of which would rekindle their self-doubt that what they are doing is right.

And additional stages are being added to the already protracted and inflated process of professional development. Recently, I observed a friend's journey through the post-doctoral search for permanent employment. Everywhere she applied, despite three years of pre-intern practical experience and one internship, she was turned away in favor of someone with "more experience" (or for academic positions, more "publications"). I have come to despise the mindless and convenient deployment of this bloated criterion, which should be evaluated within a framework of criteria such as intelligence, clinical acumen/insight, education, resourcefulness, loyalty, rapport, maturity, and initiative -- qualities that provide clues to an applicant's growth potential and learning curve. Experience (or number of publications) is a mere QUANtitative variable. It seems almost every applicant is just a stone's throw away from the experience accrued by the most experienced candidate. Moreover, what is the difference between 3,000 and 4,000 hours of clinical experience? Might there be diminishing returns, a point beyond which 'more experience' or 'more publications' (especially if these are frivolous publications) fails to pay dividends in increased knowledge or growth. Has experience or publications become a quick-and-dirty means of selecting an applicant by committees that are out of ideas or that do not wish to take the time to examine the course history of the applicants? My friend, for example, for her second doctorate in psychology, enrolled in a program that required 23 assessment and therapy courses, most of which included a clinical competency examination. In my opinion, this may more-than-compensate for any difference in experience between her and the leading candidate.

Within this climate of training, credentialing, and selection, professional development and maturity become increasingly distinct constructs. I am beginning to see professionals with a cache of experience but with little maturity, lacking perhaps the time, intelligence, or motivation to subject the experiences to the kind of integrative contemplation and reflection that builds lasting and generalizable knowledge. As this trend becomes more obvious to more employers, some employers will demand yet more experience in the form of a diverse portfolio of highly specialized experiences, while others by contrast will demand more years of the same routinized experience. Until employers can learn to think in a language other than experience or develop a metric more sophisticated than number of publications, we will be trapped in this vicious cycle and add to the professional development onion thin layers with no nutritional value (i.e., a second post-doc?).

NOTE
Barnes & Noble sells out of book while Amazon replenishes stock. As Ehrenfels works to boost supplies to Barnes & Noble and work out a better price at Amazon, Ehrenfels (for now) recommends PublisherDirect (click here) for speed.

fireflySun.com Report List

16 Points Memo: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Authors, Scholars Unite to Support Wyatt Ehrenfels: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Teams with Dream Researcher Gail Bixler: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Exposes Our Fear of Exposure Therapy: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Interviews with Internal Correspondent: Wyatt Ehrenfels

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

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

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

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

Psychology Professors Acknowledge Student Complaints about Curriculum: Wyatt Ehrenfels

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

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

Wyatt Ehrenfels Talks about the Dissertation Experience: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Discusses a Methodology for Dream Research: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Defends Dreaming from Psychologist Negative Thinking: Wyatt Ehrenfels

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

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

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

Wyatt Ehrenfels Teams with Kindred Critic Dennis Fox: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Teams with Psychotherapist Elio Frattaroli: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Teams with Political Scientist John Freie: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Teams with Biologist John Hewitt: Wyatt Ehrenfels

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

Wyatt Ehrenfels Counsels Students on True Callings: Wyatt Ehrenfels

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

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

Brad Jesness _ 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 th_e 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