MOYER: “I am speaking with JW Ehrenfels, or should I say Dr. JW Ehrenfels – author of FIREFLIES IN THE SHADOW OF THE SUN – and perhaps the muckraker of our time. Good morning, doctor.”

EHRENFELS: “Good morning, Kate.”

MOYER: “Continuing this conversation, we now turn to a topic most directly related to the central theme of your work – a work which blows the lid off the hypocrisy and corruption in higher education. By any chance, do you know where I am headed with this?”

EHRENFELS: “It wouldn’t be the GSEC by any chance?”

MOYER: “The GSEC. The Graduate Student Evaluation Committee. Am I right?”

EHRENFELS: “Absolutely. And you should be relieved. Mangling the acronym is a punishable offense.”

(Laughter).

MOYER: “I don’t doubt it…Can you define for our readers the mission of the GSEC?”

EHRENFELS: “Despite the fact it does what it professes to do – evaluate student ethics and academic performance -- I think the mission statement contained in the student handbook actually says it best.”

MOYER: “You showed this to me before we got started, and I must say, it reads like a Defense Department document.”

EHRENFELS: “They take their job very seriously.”

MOYER: “Sounds daunting. Does every academic training program have a committee like this?”

EHRENFELS: “For the most part. The GSEC at the school in question was not an exotic committee. It was made up of the same faculty members that populated the department. The GSEC simply referred to a specific meeting that took place at the end of every academic term. I understand how actually naming the committee could have raised that misunderstanding. But – and the same thing is true about any pet – once you name it – ”

MOYER: “Is this function exercised similarly across universities?”

EHRENFELS: “Some faculties meet so informally to evaluate its students or behind doors so closed, that the students may not even be aware they are being discussed – that is – unless there’s a problem – and even THEN many embattled students are not aware their political problems originate in these meetings. But more about that later. The school from which I earned my Ph.D. is probably more typical and falls somewhere between the pomp and circumstance of an GSEC and the cloak-and-dagger of another institution. But don’t let my distinction throw you – a strain of virus is still a virus – and all evaluation committee meetings can be both insidious and ceremonious. The GSEC made it quite clear when its meeting would take place, but the students had no idea how or even whether they would be discussed. The vast majority of students are not discussed in the GSEC. The GSEC chair opens the floor to the faculty and basically asks the faculty to supply the names of students about whom they have cause for concern. These students are then discussed. In the more moderate model, the academic progress of every student is discussed and input from relevant faculty – what they are likely to say about each student during the meeting -- is collected and documented BEFORE the meeting.”

MOYER: “The battle is won before it is ever fought.”

EHRENFELS: “Something like that, yes. The relevant faculty includes those professors with whom the student has had contact that term. They include not only his or her professors in classes in which he or she was enrolled, but professors he or she served as teaching or research assistants, and the professor who supervises the progress of his or her thesis or dissertation. Copies of these documents are distributed to the department head, the student, and the student’s advisor, and the student is encouraged to write up an official reply to be presented in the meeting – should the student have any objections that is. In cases where a student feels besmirched, the student’s adviser may serve as his public defender in the meeting. Students were not permitted to attend the meetings or even to make appearances.”

MOYER: “By and large, do you feel the GSEC is more – what is the word – more ‘Draconian’ – more ‘mean-spirited’ – more ‘aggressive’ – in its approach to student evaluation?”

EHRENFELS: “Every faculty I have known – every model for evaluation I have known -- has shown it is capable of some of the same Gestapo-tactics exhibited by the GSEC. I can tell you stories but I want to omit most of the details because I don’t want to cannibalize my book. FIREFLIES addresses my encounters with these two different evaluation committees in nauseating detail.”

MOYER: “So then why don’t we cut to the heart of the matter? What do you feel are the most destructive and questionable aspects of an evaluation meeting? You make it quite clear in your book that you believe that the most egregious violations of ethics on campus are committed by the Graduate Student Evaluation Committee.”

EHRENFELS: “That’s right. And they get themselves into trouble because they discuss more than simply your academic performance. Many ‘A’ students have been terrorized by an GSEC, some of whom have even been pushed out of the program.”

MOYER: “So what is discussed?”

EHRENFELS: “Student attitudes and behaviors. Faculty want to make sure their students comport themselves like professionals – even before they complete their professional training. And this is a flaw with their system – because they expect students to comply with the spirit as well as with the letter of policies and procedures they haven’t even learned yet. And this is no oversight. The evaluation meeting is used not to provide information or guidance to professors and students, but to target for exclusion students who do not think and act the way professors want. Professors want to produce clones of themselves – and they realize that even among their ‘A’ students fester some unconventional ideas and opinions.”

MOYER: “What do you mean unconventional ideas?”

EHRENFELS: “Suffice it to say that if the faculty – or even one faculty – is anti-Freudian, that person or persons will do all they can to cast aspersions on the professionalism of a student they learn has Freudian leanings. The only question that remains is whether they will directly attack the Freudian orientation of the student and make the case that it is unprofessional or whether they will bypass the appearance of politics and accuse the Freudian student of other unsavory qualities. That depends a great deal on what basis for accusation the professor believes he or she is most likely to garner support. But my example does not do justice to the subtlety and insidiousness with which accusations are typically processed. The bottom line is that a professor who doesn’t like you personally finds a way to cast aspersions on your professionalism – some of the dislike is motivated in punctilious demagogues by innocuous breaches of professionalism – and some of the dislike is motivated by bias and prejudice, you know, personality conflicts and differences of opinion.”

MOYER: “You mean like when a student disagrees with the approach of the professor?”

EHRENFELS: “It’s usually not even THAT clear cut. A professor may object to opinions a student keeps to himself or divine in a student opinions he does not really have or may be likely to develop in the future or exhibit in professional settings. There is a lot of interpretation and guesswork involved – and professors often react with tremendous uncertainty to impressions they have of a student. Often, students are unaware that they somehow remind the professors of a person in the field with whom that professor once had an unpleasant encounter. It could also be that the professors have such a high opinion of themselves and their program that they fear the student reflects a less-than- perfect embodiment of the standard they want to project for the community. If you are a student, you can give yourself away and get on the bad side of a professor not by saying something they don’t want to hear, but by failing to voice resonantly and resolutely what they DO want to hear – by failing to allay their basic insecurities that what they are doing is right. As a student – and for that matter colleague – you are asked to contribute to the Professor Insecurities Fund, which is to say you are there to help them with their self-esteem problem. In any of these scenarios, I see a lot of insecurities and delusions on the part of professors. The fact they act on them – the fact there are consequences to others – in my estimation makes those delusions and insecurities pathological.”

MOYER: “That is the standard used in your field right? If a problem interferes with a client’s ability to adapt to life requirements or if it causes considerable distress, then it warrants diagnosis, at least according to the DSM-IV. And from what you describe, the professors can behave in ways that cause considerable distress to students, who are deemed maladjusted by the very accusation of impropriety.”

EHRENFELS: “Therapists are also trained to introduce the first therapy session by telling their clients that the therapists are required to breach confidentiality only when the clients give them reason to believe they are likely to harm themselves or others. Well, it just so happens that many of these professors are also clinically trained – that they are therapists – and in my opinion they harm themselves, their students, and their profession on a term-by-term basis with their ‘evaluations.’ When I get to my next example it will be clear that the basis for the evaluations are often vague and unsubstantiated and – as I mentioned earlier – that the motives for the evaluations are often -- impure. It should be known that I am not the first person I ever heard complain about this. The complaints fall on deaf ears because the complainants use the wrong terminology. The complainants complain about being victims of accusations and aspersions that are ‘subjective.’ I don’t have any problem with subjectivity, and I also doubt that ‘subjectivity’ is not what these complainants really mean. Subjective opinions are personal opinions and, as such, they can be educated.”

MOYER: “What do you think the victims mean by ‘subjective’?”

EHRENFELS: “I think they mean ‘arbitrary.’ And I think they mean ‘vague’ and ‘unsubstantiated’ and ‘hypocritical.’”

MOYER: “How do you know what takes place in a place like the GSEC? You mentioned students were not permitted to attend.”

EHRENFELS: “True. I have not sat in on any of these meetings, but I have letters from GSEC or Department Chairs who summarize the cases against me, and I have the account of the deliberations provided by advisers. Not every adviser by the way can be the ally he wants to be. At the school with the GSEC, my advisor was reluctant to answer some of my questions concerning deliberations, telling me that it was a matter of policy that he is not ‘at liberty’ to divulge any of the details. This not only makes it impossible for a student to defend himself against false accusations – and it not only limits what the student can learn from the meeting so he can avoid repeating the same missteps – but it also violates a basic principle of psychological research: debriefing. According to the APA Ethics Code, researchers are not only required to debrief their subjects at the conclusion of the experiment, but are also required to make themselves available for follow-up questions.”

MOYER: “From what I hear, they are also prohibited from subjecting their participants to any undue stress.”

(laughter)

EHRENFELS: “Good point. I know this is an argument by analogy because students are not experimental subjects and evaluation meetings are not experiments, but I think the same spirit of the ethical point applies here. I think that by their very behavior they show how arbitrary they are about the enforcement of ethics. On this same note, I mentioned earlier that most students are accused on the basis of personal motivations by professors who do not like the students’ personalities. Well, conversely, I have evidence that these professors overlook violations of professionalism in their favorites – in students they DO like personally. We’re talking some fairly obvious and egregious misconduct. This is all beside the fact that their favoritism has aided and abetted students who can barely write and think. The school with an GSEC program also has a remedial writing course – yes, you heard right – a remedial writing course for doctoral candidates -- to which they refer students who annoy professors with ‘substandard writing.’ Some students have escaped the course because of favoritism and some have graduated with Ph.Ds despite having been required to take the course 2-3 times without noticeable improvement. They can bend over backwards to admit, train, and overlook students who cannot write, and yet they fail intellectual students who do not share in their ideology. Don’t even get me started on how they treat students with disabilities. When I’m through, you tell me I’ve said a whole web site worth. Even an APA document admits to massive discrimination by clinical internship sites against students with disabilities. But that is the extent of the APA’s involvement in the matter.”

MOYER: “So then – ”

EHRENFELS: “One more thing – sorry Kate but I feel I need to finish my thought here – ”

MOYER: “That’s quite alright.”

EHRENFELS: “I have also consulted with a member of the adjunct faculty who was asked to make a special appearance at an GSEC meeting to testify about the attitude of a student a full professor was attempting to discredit. The adjunct was appalled by the atmosphere of the meeting, which she claimed alternated between one of a trial to one of a general witch-hunt. Students were chided for all sorts of characteristics, ranging from accusations of arrogance to cases where students were chastised for being too ‘self-deprecating.’”

MOYER: “Too ‘self-deprecating’? I thought that was a good thing.”

EHRENFELS: “More than one student has been reprimanded for that. The faculty is afraid that a self-defecating student – I’m sorry – ‘self-deprecating’ – will not have the appearance of confidence. I suspect they value confidence not only as a therapeutic persona for clients but as a persona for the community-at-large. Again, a lack of confidence by trained students must tug on some of the faculty’s repressed insecurities I mentioned earlier.”

(LAUGHTER)

EHRENFELS: “ – I’ve always tried to imagine how the student who incurs that charge must feel.”

MOYER: “Self-defecating, no doubt.”

(LAUGHTER)

EHRENFELS: “As scientists or practitioners, these professors are advocating scientific ethics and evidence in their classrooms on Tuesday and then on Wednesday are drawing inferences about their students’ attitudes and priorities based on very flimsy evidence. I mean some of it is really very thin.”

MOYER: “Anything like our chad problem in South Florida?”

EHRENFELS: “Like looking for dimples with an electron microscope. Oh, you’re going to get me in a lot of trouble here Kate.”

MOYER: “Are you worried some of your visitors will try to shut you down? What would you make of the charge that you’re undermining the public trust?”

EHRENFELS: “In psychologists? They have to earn that trust like everyone else. Far be it from them to feel exempt from this basic rule. Thus far they have relied on the authority of their credential – on mass-hypnotism – for their credibility. If it shatters under the weight of my criticism alone, then that is their fault – not mine. The public has become more sophisticated over the past decade with respect to the evaluation of their public officials. I don’t think the psychologists will be able to hide behind the mysteries of their training anymore – and they will not find immunity behind a mere semblance of science – behind the glare off their laminated diploma. And if you ask me – they better hope the public is already skeptical of them. I mean, the more clout they command with the public, the more brittle they are – and the more likely their façade will break into shards so small – all the Kings Horses and All the Kings Men won’t even answer the 911. Look -- some of these professors are even social psychologists and clinicians. How they cannot realize…I mean – think about it – when a professor raises a problem with a student – it creates a self-fulfilling prophecy. Most of the professors in the meeting who witness the accusation have never interacted with the student before; they are the students’ future professors. In the case of the GSEC meeting, I have been told by my informant that the professors are actually told to ‘watch out’ for this student – to ‘watch’ for these same behaviors and attitudes so they can report on their progress in the next GSEC meeting. The problem with that is that they come to look for evidence of the problematic attitude and behavior, even if it does not exist. They are sensitized to it – to ask the question – ‘do I see what she [that professor] means?’ The student never has an opportunity to establish his or her own relationship with that professor – to start fresh every semester. So when a student is accused for a second consecutive semester within an GSEC, it is usually because of the first accusation.”

MOYER: “Doesn’t sound very ethical to me.”

EHRENFELS: “I can’t decide whether I’m offended more as a man of ethics or as a man of science. On Tuesday, these professors as scientists caution their students against non-independent observations that can threaten the validity of their conclusions, but they do not seem to understand that the evaluations of their own students from one semester to the next are not independent. If you ask me, the student is effectively slandered in these meetings. And to add insult to injury, some of the students never even realize they are slandered. They lack the intelligence or the information needed to realize how from their first day of class in some of these courses, their relationship with the professor is already pre-determined. Not many degrees of freedom there. If you read my book, you will understand just how this happened to me.”

MOYER: “I did read your book. I was astonished by what happened to say the least. But you requested I not address any of the specifics about the – ”

EHRENFELS: “I don’t want to steal from my book.”

MOYER: “Why do you think this sort of thing happens?”

EHRENFELS: “It is a combination of many of the qualities and agendas I summarized in other parts of this interview – but suffice it to say for our purposes here that they like to play God. That is the simplistic version. It is not the psychologically sophisticated, analytical, or intellectual explanation I offer elsewhere, but I refuse to sound like a stuck record. There was an article by Thompson, Peterson, and Brodt published in 1996 – I believe in the Journal of Social and Personality Psychology – that warned their peers against the potential pitfalls of these sorts of meetings. Basically their research confirmed that whenever a group gets together, the accuracy of information discussed and of the conclusions reached is subverted by the need to maintain group norms. The importance of maintaining harmony within the group is a force that compromises every other initiative. Social psychologists even have a word for this and I believe it is cited in most General Psychology textbooks – ‘groupthink.’ There were at least two professors who could have intervened on my behalf in the GSEC meeting at that one institution, but they remained silent because they didn’t want to rock the boat. Meanwhile, another professor with whom I had no more than a single conversation – she was just an acquaintanceship – misled the faculty about my motives for having told her about a dream I had – a dream in which she was a character. The dream was benign – she did no more in the dream than arrange French fries on a desk – but she claimed the dream made her feel ‘uncomfortable.’ She didn’t tell the faculty what the dream was – but her claim it made her feel ‘uncomfortable’ must have conjured up in their minds images of sexual content – or -- who knows? – perhaps the faculty assumed I simply told her she appeared in a dream and left it at that – left it to her to assume the rest. But that is not what happened.”

MOYER: “Why do you think she was ‘uncomfortable’?”

EHRENFELS: “I’m not convinced she was. If she was uncomfortable, then it can only be explained by her hypersensitivity in which case she and not I should be the one considered by the GSEC for unprofessionalism. She’s a clinician for Christ sakes.”

MOYER: “Is she a Freudian?”

EHRENFELS: “I know where you’re headed with this. No – she’s not even psychodynamic. There is no way her discomfort could be traced to an attempt at an interpretation of the dream. She is not inclined to interpret the dream, nor is she interested, nor is she qualified. She is young and she is CBT. She even told me she was unfamiliar with the whole enterprise. I think the GSEC chair – no – let me rephrase that -- I actually have it on the word of my so-called ‘adviser’ – that the GSEC chair – after I was raised as a concern by one professor – asked the general floor whether any other professor had anything to say about me. Then she added her two cents. I think she did it because she was new faculty – she may have even been younger than I was – she may have even received her Ph.D. later than I did – and she sold me out just so she could make a contribution to the meeting. Just so she could be remembered for having said something during the meeting.”

MOYER: “Why is that important?”

EHRENFELS: “She needs to remain in the good graces of the faculty. She needs to look like a team player if she wants to remain aboard. She had no tenure at that point.”

MOYER: “Are you saying you understand why she did what she did?”

EHRENFELS: “I will never understand such self-serving careerism. I wanted to tell her after I withdrew what her ambitions cost me. Because I am sure she has no idea. I’m not even sure she remembers me now or what she said during the meeting. She probably remembered it only as long as she needed it to advance her career. She probably forgot the whole thing after the meeting.”

MOYER: “But you opted NOT to confront her.”

EHRENFELS: “To protect my wife, who was still in the program. If they can no longer hold me accountable, they will hold her accountable. Anything they can do to get to me. I’ve seen it happen. It really is quite desperate on their part – but they do it. You never contradict or correct a professor – you never imply error on the part of a professor – it is considered ‘inappropriate.’ And the student always gets his comeuppance. One way or another – they will make sure you pay. Just examine the whole system – there are mechanisms designed to protect them from students with grievances. They are so afraid that after graduation, a student will march into their office and tell one of them off. That to me is the real reason we need three – and in some cases as many as four -- letters of recommendation – to apply for any job or transfer to any school. If you are thinking of bypassing the problem school using all three or four letters from a school you attended previously, then you cannot submit your academic records for the problem school – even if you received excellent grades. Because the faculty at the prospective school will suspect something – some ‘inappropriate behavior’ they fear you will repeat at THEIR school -- and the only thing you could do to allay their fears and suspicions is to produce a couple letters of recommendation from the most recent institution. Even if you attempt to wipe the year or two or three from your existence – in other words – omit the record of the problem school – the prospective school will inquire aggressively into that ‘gap’ in your resume. You better have an answer for them.”

MOYER: “Why didn’t you set the record straight after you knew what happened? Confront the GSEC decision and attempt to overturn it.”

EHRENFELS: “First of all – you never overturn an GSEC decision. The perception lingers – it goes underground. My book addresses that. Having said that – yes – I did intend to plead my case. But my advisor informed me that the faculty would remember me more in the long run for challenging a faculty member than for doing what I was accused in the meeting of doing. And the way the department head phrased it – it sounded like such a threat. She wanted to make sure I didn’t challenge any one of the misjudgments in their compilation. But I could have challenged them all. The whole ‘pattern of misjudgment’ of which I was accused was vague and unsubstantiated. It was a glass house of cards with clay feet built on a foundation of sand.”

MOYER: “Weak.”

EHRENFELS: “Now THAT was a pattern of misjudgment. During the meeting, another professor who had never even made my acquaintance even confused me with another student. Claimed I asked an inappropriate favor of a practicum supervisor. I’ve never even been on practicum. I was just a first-year. And I was informed by another student that this professor has done this before.”

MOYER: “Confused two students.”

EHRENFELS: “Yes. There were over 150 students in the program. But I was warned that if I corrected her, it might cause her considerable embarrassment. There was no getting around that. And on top of it all, if I embarrassed her, I was told I could compromise my practicum placement opportunities down the road. The professor in question was the school’s training director. As the training director, she and only she decides whether you get to apply to the sites you want – or that if she chooses the sites for you – she and only she can choose the sites she feels you are likely to land. And she ultimately decides whether you are even ready to do a practicum. If she should happen to decide you don’t have the temperament for the trade at this time – you’re in the program for at least a whole other year. And the faculty defers to her decisions in these matters because she panders to their concern for the reputation of the program. All she has to do is pretend to suspect that a student may threaten that reputation or threaten a relationship with a practicum supervisor who may decide as a consequence not to accept any more students from the school. So my advisor and the department head told me not to set the record straight.”

MOYER: “Am I correct in assuming your advisor didn’t say anything?”

EHRENFELS: “You mean in the meeting? I asked him that same question. He claimed he didn’t have all the facts. Well, how can he when the accusations themselves are based on falsehoods. Still – I expected more from that spineless, chinless simp.”

MOYER: “Still – I have to admit – with what you have told me so far about those two professors – it conjures up images of conspiracy.”

EHRENFELS: “I doubt there was a conspiracy in effect at this school. I was only a first trimester student. I don’t believe they disliked me as a group. I just think it was a combination of personal ambition, gross incompetence, and the system. But I have been victimized by a conspiracy at another school. Believe it or not – I did end up braving all the rancor and suspicion to earn my Ph.D. from that school. But I was in no mood to brave the judgment of the GSEC at the school from which I sought a post-doctoral respecialization degree. Not after what I’d already been through. My advisor couldn’t understand why I wanted to withdraw after the GSEC meeting. He said it was the first of many flags that would have to be raised before the school could demand my departure. But you know -- I would have spent the next few years looking over my shoulder, second-guessing everything I said or did in class, and trying to read the faces of the professors to determine what they were divining of me. And – to top it all off – the letter from the GSEC Chair recommended that I seek therapy.”

MOYER: “The GSEC Chair actually recommended you seek therapy?”

EHRENFELS: “No – the faculty as a whole issued that recommendation. The GSEC Chair just grinded it through his typewriter.”

MOYER: “But it still is only a recommendation.”

EHRENFELS: “You get into trouble for thinking that way. I once did not take the ‘suggestion’ of a faculty member. They later used it in an evaluation meeting as evidence for my arrogance and unwillingness to adjust. I confronted the professor and told him – ‘but you said it was a suggestion’ – and he replied ‘I didn’t want to look like a bad guy.’ And I understand that. I am baffled every time the professors tell us how much latitude they give us. And then I realize that they are not necessarily lying to their students – but to themselves. They want – no – they NEED – to believe they do such things because their whole reason for being in the field is to be loved. Especially the older male professors. The younger female professors want to be empowered. So now – whenever I hear or read the words ‘suggestion’ or ‘recommendation,’ I take it as code for ‘requirement.’ THEY expect me to hear it that way. A lot of their program requirements, unlike their course requirements -- which are more explicit – are in that kind of code. I see the other students conform so readily and I wonder why when I hear all this wonderful rhetoric about latitude and freedom. But somehow they know. It must be because they have the same attitudes and motivations coursing through their veins as these professors. The problem is that these attitudes and motivations are mistaken for – or masqueraded as – the ‘epistemology’ of the field. As far as they’re concerned, if I’m not with them – I’m against them. An outsider -- an imposter. If I don’t share their same inclinations, I am unconventional, the meaning of which they formally debated in my regard at an evaluation meeting. And you know what they decided? That to be ‘unconventional’ is to be ‘unprofessional’ – and I was placed on a form of conduct probation.”

MOYER: “So you would have had to get therapy.”

EHRENFELS: “It would have been the only way I could have proven to them that I am making a good faith effort to comply with their recommendation. And I have to protect myself. Should similar concerns be raised about me in the next GSEC meeting, I will look not only guilty for a second time, but I would also look like I was unwilling to adjust– that I was unwilling to take the steps they so wisely offered to remediate the problem. They interpret this kind of noncompliance as a form of insurrection.”

MOYER: “So you saw the writing on the wall and called it quits. A clinical degree was not in the cards.”

EHRENFELS: “After that monumental compilation of misjudgments on THEIR part, I was pretty sure I was in line for more of the same. Why should I think anything would change? Why should I expect any less than a litany of questionably motivated mistakes? I was sure something was born during that first GSEC meeting – that the judgment would take on a life of its own. It was only a matter of time before it threatened more than just my standing in the program, but my survival. I did not want to owe tens of thousands of dollars in loans by the time I was handed my walking papers. I would have had a mountain of debt – and I would not have had the advanced degree needed to work it off. Out of bitterness alone I may have decided to default. But I was also afraid of my anger. I would have been so angry – so much angrier under those circumstances.”

MOYER: “Thank you, Dr. Ehrenfels. (To audience). And we’ll have more with Dr. Julian Wyatt Ehrenfels next week when he returns to discuss such issues as student selection and training.”

fireflySun.com Report List

16 Points Memo: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Authors, Scholars Unite to Support Wyatt Ehrenfels: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Teams with Dream Researcher Gail Bixler: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Exposes Our Fear of Exposure Therapy: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Interviews with Internal Correspondent: Wyatt Ehrenfels

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

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

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

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

Psychology Professors Acknowledge Student Complaints about Curriculum: Wyatt Ehrenfels

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

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

Wyatt Ehrenfels Talks about the Dissertation Experience: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Discusses a Methodology for Dream Research: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Defends Dreaming from Psychologist Negative Thinking: Wyatt Ehrenfels

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

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

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

Wyatt Ehrenfels Teams with Kindred Critic Dennis Fox: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Teams with Psychotherapist Elio Frattaroli: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Teams with Political Scientist John Freie: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Teams with Biologist John Hewitt: Wyatt Ehrenfels

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

Wyatt Ehrenfels Counsels Students on True Callings: Wyatt Ehrenfels

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

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

Brad Jesness Target of Malicious Psychologists on Usenet: Brad Jesness

Wyatt Ehrenfels Teams with Medal-Winning Author M.J. John: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Critical of Vaunted Cornell Research Claiming Opposites Do NOT Attract: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Criticizes Berkeley Psychology Professors for Left Wing Bias: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Offers Links to Education and Appropriations Subcommittees: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Thunders Away at Psychology's Load-Bearing Premises: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Counsels High School Students on Choice of College Major: Wyatt Ehrenfels

APPIC Match Service Helps Veterans Hospital Psychologists Discriminate against Applicants w/ Disabilities: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Psychology Professional Development at Odds with Adult Maturation: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Republishes Work of College Curriculum Critic and FOX News Writer Wendy McElroy: Wendy McElroy

Wyatt Ehrenfels Likens Psychological Research to Premature Ejaculation: Wyatt Ehrenfels

According to Social Psychologist Wyatt Ehrenfels, Diversity Is Skin Deep, Black-and-White at University of Michigan: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Dismantles Psychology's Standard Defenses against Criticism: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Points to Hypocrisy in Terror Management Research: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Releases Revitalized Pocket Memo: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Publishes Critique in Revolution Issue of New Therapist Magazine: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Is Psychology at Odds with Itself?: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Says Campaign Not Intend to Offend Psychology Majors: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Why Community Access Television Is Coming Around to Wyatt Ehrenfels: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Overview of Wyatt Ehrenfels's Fireflies in the Shadow of the Sun: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Are Psychology Professors Prejudiced against Psyche: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Psychology's Science of Dreams Fails Science and Dreams: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Psychology Graduate Schools Blasted for Culture of Student Character Assassination: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Ode to Psychology Students: Are You Making A Major out of a Molehill: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Multicultural Fetish of Psychology Professors Belie Suppression of Individual Freedom, Ideas in Psychology: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Games without Frontiers: Ehrenfels Depicts Science of Psychology as ADHD: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Uses Evolutionary Theory, Natural Selection to Impugn D-Volving Psychology: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Reveals American Psychological Association as Lobbying Tour de Force: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Shares Bizarre Tale of Application for University Position: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Dreams & Dreaming Frequently Asked Questions: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Discusses Predictive Power of Tornado Dreams: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Releases Preface to Fireflies in the Shadow of the Sun: Wyatt Ehrenfels

In a Drugged States, New Mexico Legislators Give Psychologists Prescriptive Authority: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Fireflies in the Shadow of the Sun Press Release: Katheryn Moyer

Brad Jesness Exposes Malicious Stalking by Psychologists on Usenet: Brad Jesness

Psychology Majors Respond to Wyatt Ehrenfels fireflySun.com: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Offers Personality Taxonomy: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Offers Blueprint for Blighted Psychology: Wyatt Ehrenfels

From Position of Ignorance, APA Official Diverts Attention from/Urges Skepticism for, Wyatt Ehrenfels APPIC Discrimination Report: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Comes to Terms with Roiled Psychology Graduate Student and News Group Moderator: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Responses to Wyatt Ehrenfels Campaign to Reform Psychology: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Independent Publisher Offers Glowing Review of Fireflies in the Shadow of the Sun: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Teams with Psychotherapist Robert Roerich: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Says Psychology Professors Play Games with Rules: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Teams with Physicist Jeff Schmidt: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Malicious Stalking by Psychologists Abusing Psychotherapy News Group: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Reveals Groupthink, Abuse in Psychology Faculty Evaluation of Graduate Students: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Begins Sequel to Fireflies in the Shadow of the Sun: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Exposes Counseling Center Hiring Preference for Gays, Lesbians: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Diagnoses the Diagnosticians with the Shadow DSM: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Prominent UC-Davis Dream Researcher Dodges Wyatt Ehrenfels Draft of Reformers: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Teams with Management Consulting Maven R. Mallory Starr: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Overview of Wyatt Ehrenfels Dream Research with Cancer Patients: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Comments on the Short Falls of Teaching in Psychology: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Popular Psychotherapy All about Controlling Chaos: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Washington National Cathedral Site of Synchronicity in Novel by Social Psychologist: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Comments on the Value of a Degree in Psychology: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Offers Strategy for Self-Science of Dreams: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Attacks Psychology on Two Fronts: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Connie Vaughn Teams with Wyatt Ehrenfels to Explain Why She Is Not a Psychology: Connie Vaughn

Benjamin Willard Elected President of Wyatt Ehrenfels Fan Club: Benjamin Willard

Wyatt Ehrenfels Identifies Flaws in U.S. News Report of Psychology Employment Prospects: Wyatt Ehrenfels