"For those who have asked what this Foundation is and where the money goes . . . the Foundation receives all author royalties from David Myers’ introductory psychology textbooks (Psychology and Exploring Psychology) and from his general audience trade books (The Pursuit of Happiness, The American Paradox, A Quiet World, and Intuition: Its Powers and Perils). The Foundation exists “to receive and distribute funds to other charitable organizations." The Foundation regrets that, with no staff and limited resources, it does not invite unsolicited proposals." --David Myers

Okay, so staff and resources are limited, but it remains a perfect illustration of the infectious spread of 'standards' within a planned community where everyone is imitating everyone else and finishing each other's sentences. Myers, as a serial textbook author pumping out editions at the rate of one a biennium, represents a conservative force in the field of Psychology, taking the field's meeting minutes and canonizing the field's most consensual aspects. I also have to wonder whether our field is really developing fast enough to support all these money-making new editions. But, suffice it to say, rumors of my excommunication would have abounded had I tried to get away with ordering an older edition for my students.

Representing a progressive voice within Psychology, I offered a critical slant on the field in a number of posts to APA association listservs a couple years ago in the spirit of agitation propodandists, narcissists, and spammers like Martin Luther (har har). Shortly therafter, I noticed a post from the vaunted David Myers thanking members of the psychological community for what were likely effusively and tearfully sentimental responses to his ideas for a "Psychology Matters" web site. Today, the eminently forgetful web site is an addition to the house on 750 1st Street (APA.org) in -- where else? -- the nation's capitol. The web page flaunts so little content that it hardly looks like anymore more than the side of a New York City subway car protesting defiantly the words 'Psychology Matters' in 'Inner City Grafiti' font.

"Ken Steele offers a interesting and useful idea—to show how research discounting the “Mozart Effect” has helped deter the public from pursuing an illusory phenomenon. That led me to ponder other possible ways in which psychological science has made a constructive impact by debunking" -- David Myers.

Oh yes, the art of debunking. The art of prying the folk wisdom from the cold dead hands of the much-maligned 'man-in-the-street.' As long as there are people out there who still cling to beliefs ranging from 'Opposites Attract' to 'Life after Death' -- and everything in between including but not limited to 'Dreams have meaning' and 'extrasensory perception' -- there are people who quietly long for some paternalistic psych prof in a white coat to bitch-slap some sense into them and save them from themselves. With all the APA's lobbying, its policy analysis and punditry, the media relations, public awareness and efforts to shape federal social policy by marching psychologists into their senator's offices, it has become increasingly clear they want to turn all of the world into its classroom.

"...The textbooks have to address such a wide variety of topics, that it can only do so, well, topically. The treatment of the material must take place at a superficial level, at which level authors can agree on the most basic terms and research findings. The problem is that while the psychology professor only has to serve one master as a Developmental psychologist or Social psychologist or I/O psychologist etcetera, once he steps into the General Psychology classroom, he serves everyone's masters. Naturally, the people who teach General Psychology lean on authors of General Psychology textbooks, who in turn, have to superficially review and broadly outline a survey of the entire field. The problem with Psychology is revealed in the problems with teaching General Psychology. Psychology is too big. Psychology should disband into a hundred different disciplines, withdraw or get assimilated into other fields, or else remain the field Psychological Issues and drop all these pretenses to unity. When we try to compensate for or conceal the natural diversity of topics, temperaments, and pet theories, and I am referring here to this bloated network of arbitrary and superfluous policies and procedures, some topics end up winning and becoming central to Psychology, while others, ironically the most psychologistic phenomena like dreams, end up getting distorted or marginalized as do those who wish to stake their careers as students of these phemomena. When you pull a rubber band over as wide a field as we do, that band is likely to show stretch-marks and cracks right up until the moment it snaps. It really is the worst of both worlds if you think about it. You have so much diversity that you cannot achieve any depth, and on top of that you impose this cosmetic sheer of consensus to make it appear we're all part of the same field."

"...In General Psychology, the textbooks read like supplemental teacher manuals -- because the professor knows little more about most of these content domains than the students. The professor is reading along with the student. I remember when a student in one of the General Psychology classes I was teaching as a graduate student -- this fellow was a senior physics major -- voiced in class that the model of light wave I was teaching them was simplistic to the point of teetering on the brink of inaccuracy. But what could I tell him/them? I am required to teach it. And I am required to use the model supplied by the textbook. The head of the student teaching practicum seminar approached me after class to offer me some reassurance. He praised me for defending the textbook and assured me that this sort of thing happens from time to time. I was naturally displeased with having been put in such a position, and it was a position I would have been put in often when I have so little control over the content of my course. Too many psych profs are expected to serve roles as representatives of their department, Psychology as a whole, and Science itself when designing courses and course lectures. At this level, we are all really nothing more than interchangeable laborers treating students like anonymous bricks in a wall.

But many psych profs love the idea of a survey course like General Psychology. They just don't like teaching it, which is why it often gets passed to the new assistant professors as part of some hazing ritual or rite of initiation. Psych profs love the idea because they love fooling the world into thinking that they, as professors of psychology, must have acquired an expertise the breadth of which spans a universe of topics that has everything to do with everyone. Hey, intelligence? That's us! We have something to say about that! Eyewitness testimony? Us again! Leadership style? Us. The brain? Us! Terrorism? Us. Well, if philosophers know everything about nothing, psychology professors know nothing about everything. Your General Psychology class will bore you to tears with pointless minutae and derivative dribble about the way the field is organized and conducts its business.

MOYER: “But more in-depth, right?”

EHRENFELS: “Yes – but there is nothing in the way of integration. So you study some models of memory and some memory-related issues – like eyewitness testimony – and memory-enhancement techniques like the method of loci. So what? What does any of this have to do with the person as a whole or even with some of the other phenomena taken up in the other advanced courses. And these models of memory they teach you are still decades-old models presented in textbooks – like Broadbent’s model, which depicts memory as a set of square boxes. You learn little more than the obvious facts – like there is a part of memory for retaining short-term information and a part for long-term. Just a couple years ago, I got a professor to admit that the idea of dynamic processing within long-term memory was a radical, free-wheeling idea. Personally, I can’t picture memory without it. Why no one else has thought of this continues to flummox me – but I suppose we cannot introduce theories too complicated for our methods. Besides, if we imbued that stockroom we call long-term memory with the properties of dynamic processing, we would end up re-creating the unconscious of Freud or Jung – and no one in modern Cognitive Science wants that!”

MOYER: “So you’re telling me that no one has thought of an active memory system?”

EHRENFELS: “None of the models I have ever read or heard has any activity – any life to them whatsoever, except for a phenomenological interpretation of a new connectionist theory I encountered in my independent research. But because this work has not achieved any level of recognition and acceptance within the community as a whole, it will collect dust in some journal. I remember presenting it in class for my oral presentation requirement. The work was only about 8 years old at the time – and my professor had never heard of it. But I learned more from that one article then I learned in my entire career from Cognitive Psychologists about mind and memory. Besides, the work is considered too conceptual – too intellectual – to be incorporated into any curriculum. And like I said, until the professors believe it is included in the course syllabus of most other professors, they will not include it in theirs. That’s how this works. So until then, we will have to make due with concepts that could be summarized and easily referenced by single bold-faced terms. Now some professors – their idea of sophistication – would be to have their advanced students read the old -- and I mean old – trade papers – the works of the original authors of the seminal studies that first documented or demonstrated the finding summarized by the bold-faced term. And this is all well and good – because it DOES give us a chance to see how these ridiculous and simplistic box-models of memory came into being -- but like I said, these courses do not address their subject matter with any adequacy. And I know they think they are sacrificing adequacy for accuracy – like a reporter who won’t print a juicy story unless he can confirm every drop of detail – but trust me – new theories and new information would transform these models from apples to oranges – so that today’s version of the facts – even where accurate – upon assembly portray such an incomplete picture of the truth that what we really end up sacrificing is the accuracy of the whole for the accuracy of the parts. We end up with a caricature of the truth – a portrait of memory with a huge nose and no chin. I think it’s sad that the best we can expect from some of these courses is the field trip back to the ‘70s cognitive research museum. If these professors are willing to take me back, why not go ALL the way back -- to Vienna Freud and Zurich Jung -- who have more to say on the subject of Psychology than anyone -- and by the looks of things will have more for decades to come – until we open ourselves up a little and see what a field of Psychology can really do! Until then -- one drop of Jung will continue to have more meaning than a whole textbook.”

MOYER: “On behalf of the world, I have two words for you – ‘no way.’”

EHRENFELS: “You KNOW I’m right. I can hear it in your voice. And because I know you’re an intelligent and curious person who once took a course in General Psych. And if I had to guess – you thought very little of it. You were just waiting for someone like me to come along and flesh out some of these feelings you have about having been fleeced. And it’s not that difficult to explain really. I suspect it IS this way because when we carved up Psychology into these sub-divisions – into these little universes -- we carve up the person into psychological organs. When you compartmentalize the content into these jurisdictions, you limit accountability. By that I mean none of the researchers are inspired to attempt to explain memory, for example, in terms of the whole person when memory IS the whole subject area in which they are qualified and expected to teach and do research. Let me say that again. Memory is ALL they are trained to teach and research – it is ALL they are qualified and expected to know – so why WOULD they – and how CAN they – perform any research or teach any material with implications for the whole person? We work within these small lifeless boxes. We do not have within psychology the equivalent of a general practitioner or internist. We have liver specialists, kidney specialists, heart – no, probably no heart specialists – we have a hell of a lot of BRAIN specialists – and people who specialize in certain neural groups and pathways within the brain – but no one who understands – or even WORKS to understand – the way these organs function together. And THAT is how you end up with a survey course like General Psychology where the professor is really only qualified to teach ONE chapter. And when he reaches that chapter, pay careful attention to your professor. He or she may want to put the book down or even throw it away so he can rely on his own training and experience. But is what is THAT even worth if the hip bone is not connected to the leg bone – if the domain in which he is an expert is not connected to the other domains – and if the domains in and of themselves – the way they are carved up – are worthless. THAT is ANOTHER contention of mine.”

MOYER: “Is there any chance these researchers and teachers will put the human being back together once they have enough facts about the organs?”

EHRENFELS: “I don’t know. Humpty Dumpty took a pretty big fall. In don’t really see how. If it ever even came to that point, they would disagree on where to put the organs. Let me tell you EXACTLY what I think would happen in metaphorical terms. Because no one has studied the heart of psychology – and the heart here refers to THAT part of human nature that is the product of the integration of the parts – stuff like motivation and emotion and dreams for which we have no specialists. Because our human has no heart, professors who prefer the liver -- who are comfortable working with the liver – who identify personally and professionally with the liver – will insist on putting the liver where the heart had been. Professors who prefer the kidney – who identify personally and professionally with the kidney – will also insist on putting the kidney where the heart had been. In short, you will have an eternal struggle among professors who lobby for the centrality and fundamentality of memory, learning, personality, intelligence, even interpersonal relationships. Just about the only thing they will agree on is that Statistics & Methodology if the blood of the human being – and because this WILL BE and HAS ALWAYS BEEN the agreement among professors – except for me of course – I think that’s bullshit – professors will remain forever locked in this mindless research of lifeless subjects because research IS STATISTICS AND METHODOLOGY.”

MOYER: “Is there anyone you know of, who has NOT assigned a textbook for General Psychology?”

EHRENFELS: “Yes. Two actually. My wife was one. And I was the other. But normally it is not an issue – not a matter the department need concern itself with. I mean, there is probably no policy on the books requiring use of a textbook.”

MOYER: “Why not? From what you TOLD me – ”

EHRENFELS: “Because no professor has ever thought of going without one. Like I said, they know so little about the content domains, they are more-than-willing to rely on the omnibus textbook. And they have no vision for Psychology that would conflict with the textbook. But it did occur to my wife and I that if you re-organize the course material – so you do NOT address human nature in THESE units – in terms of what the textbook authors would have you believe are the basic building blocks of the person – then you are free to be your own expert. And that is what we did. We threw out the book and wrote our own.”

MOYER: “Did that open some eyes within the department?”

EHRENFELS: “Well – it raised some eyebrows – lowered some booms.”

MOYER: “They didn’t appreciate your approach.”

EHRENFELS: “Because we did not touch on all the bold-faced terms you would find in a textbook, we were told our courses were not evenly or fairly representative of the content of the field – that our courses were too ‘professorial’ and too ‘classical.’ That we were not ‘contemporary.’”

MOYER: “And what did you make of these criticisms?”

EHRENFELS: “I took that to mean we were conceptual – intellectual – that we were making a real effort to do justice to the natures of the persons sitting across from us. You see, while my course may not have been representative at professional turf level – at the level of bold-faced and italicized terms – it WAS representative in a way the standard courses never could be – representative of the person – of the real subject matter. Again, this is a course in GENERAL or INTRODUCTORY Psychology. So why make of the course a heap of details? And I contend that I did not ignore the basic material, but that I simply recast it in the context of broader issues. I may not have delved into the structure of the neuron or the phases of an action potential, but I DID address mind-body relationships in the context of my course design. I should have realized that would offend my teaching practicum supervisor, whose jurisdiction is physiological psychology. I should have realized he would be argue that my General Psychology course emphasized MY domain of Personality but not HIS domain of physiological psychology. Notwithstanding my belief that physiological psychology is better served as an offshoot of the biology department, suffice it to say I believed those details about the brain to have been completely unnecessary. All the students need know is that there are researchers who study structures and functions within the brain and that certain psychological symptoms have a basis in the brain and can be treated with medication or surgery. But we KNOW virtually nothing about how these structures and functions correlate with the normal psychological life of the person – and not much more about how they correlate with common pathological symptoms – and until we DO – and until we know these explanations preclude suitable psychological explanations -- these structures and functions will remain isolated from the TRUE phenomena – the TRUE charge – of our field. So why bog down my students with the details? THAT time could be much better spent. Hell – we don’t even have the first clue how the mind and body interact, if they even interact. All we COULD have is some correlations – no cause-effect relations. So why am I even required to present the brain? Maybe if we bracketed the brain, we wouldn’t use it so much as a crutch for our broken intellects. The approach of a true psychological scholar would affirm the psyche rather than simply assume for the sake of prejudice or convenience that it is a temporary seat-filler for what we do not yet know about the brain. And yet virtually all these professors would gasp in awe if they knew I wanted to short-change the brain in a General Psychology course. What is Psychology? In their view – however else we define Psychology – ‘study of behavior’ – ‘study of mental processes’ – it is FUNDAMENTALLY – FIRST AND FOREMOST -- a study of the brain. I think that is the Mother of all cop-outs. And when I teach, I am expected to ‘respect’ – to ‘NOT offend’ – and these terms become synonymous once you step foot on university grounds – the members of the faculty. And I would OFFEND any faculty member whose content domain I overlooked. But once I pay my respects to all these domains – little if any time remains for the real work.”

MOYER: “Now as I understand it – when you taught that General Psychology course – you were a graduate student enrolled in the teaching apprenticeship program – which means you were teaching under the guidance and at least occasional supervision of a faculty steward.”

EHRENFELS: “Yes. And prior to the beginning of our teaching practicum, we secured permission from the supervisor to assemble a packet of materials – chapters from a variety of books – that we could substitute for a textbook. But about 8 weeks into the 14-week course – as my students became accustomed to my style and approach – the supervisor called a meeting and announced that what we were doing was too unconventional – that upon contemplation he realized I would not have the support of the broader department. The supervisor examined the so-called teaching philosophy I composed as part of the teaching vita I was required to write for practicum credit – and it became clear to him I was not a member of the club. My course was brought to the attention of the department head, who intervened in dramatic fashion.”

MOYER: “What does that mean, ‘dramatic fashion’?”

EHRENFELS: “He denounced the course and, in an unprecedented action, he collaborated with the supervisor and one other interested professor on a proposal for the mid-term restructuring of my class – all of course with the welfare of the students in mind.”

MOYER: “How would you describe their motives?”

EHRENFELS: “In addition to being personally offended by my departure from the reservation, they made a lot of references to this fear that one or more of my students would complain about the course to the Dean. They also made a lot of references to the apprenticeship program as ‘his baby,’ meaning the personal project of the supervisor. I think they were afraid the student would give them a black eye or that the Dean would actually shut down this apprenticeship program. They needed graduate students to teach their courses, so they did not want to see that happen. I tried to re-assure them that none of my students had any reason to complain – no inclination to complain – and no basis for complaint. But they wouldn’t listen to me. But there was also something else in the works. When I was hanging out in the hallway around the corner from the department head and the supervisor, I overheard the department head speak about the state of the department and I heard the supervisor issue some recommendations – a kind of a wish list for what he would like to see happen. One month after the restructuring I learned the department head had been applying for Deanships at other universities – and that he DID IN FACT accept one of these positions. I also learned that the department head would endorse the supervisor as his successor. Then I flashed back to what I had overheard that day in the hallway and to the restructuring meeting, and I realized that they had known of these plans for quite some time and that what they really must have feared was that my course would give the supervisor a black eye and threaten his succession to department head. It DOES in retrospect seem so – so disproportionate – the suddenness and severity with which they denounced my course – and the lengths to which they were willing to go to rectify the situation. I mean –- think about it – changing the rules of the course mid-stream. And they changed ALL the rules. They didn’t like my two comprehensive essay exams – they weren’t ‘psychometrically sound’ – so they required that I replace them with a weekly 20-item quiz composed of questions from the textbook publishers’ test, completed on optical scan forms, and graded by computer. To do this, they required that I reduce the weight of the midterm my students already took from one-half to one-third of the final grade for those students who wanted to keep their midterm grade, and for those who did not like their midterm grade, I was instructed to discount it entirely.”

MOYER: “What a total emasculation?”

EHRENFELS: “It’s not as if I thought my students would stand up and cheer these changes. Sure, the students always felt a little uncertain in my class about what I expected and how they would perform, but I gave out a lot of As on that midterm – and the professors knew that because they demanded to see the midterms after I graded them – it felt like I had been through a complete body cavity search.”

MOYER: “I was about to say an audit.”

EHRENFELS: “And I knew none of the students who received As on the midterm wanted it reduced from two-thirds to one-third of their final score. But for the next 6 weeks – yes they did this with just 6 weeks left – I would be a surrogate – a vessel – for the department. All my lectures had to be based on the textbook and the list of topics they provided weekly for me to cover. My lectures had to be pre-approved. I was also required to assign my class a textbook. But because only 8 remained in the university bookstore at this time, the department placed these 8 on reserve at the library. And that is where my thirty-five students – and my wife’s thirty-five students – 70 students total – had to spend so much time weekly to read the chapters. And because they were quizzed weekly, there was also a time crunch. If they waited until the last moment, all the textbooks on reserve may be checked out. The professors’ answer to this was to require the library to place the textbooks on 2-hour reserve. So the students had to read IN the library and had only THIS time to review any one chapter. And I was required to assign some chapters, the content of which I already covered in the first 8 weeks of my course – but I was still required to teach that chapter nut-by-nut – bolt-by-bolt – even if meant my students would see some of the material for a second time.”

MOYER: “I can’t even imagine.”

EHRENFELS: “I will never forget that day that I had to announce the changes to my class. It was the first day back from Spring Break. Yes, the meeting occurred the day before Spring Break – the day before my birthday incidentally – and my wife and I were told not to go anywhere for Spring Break. Of course – we hadn’t planned a trip anyway – we had 140 test-answers to grade – all long essays. This was the extent of our commitment to the course – that we were willing to give our students ample opportunity – and a lot of latitude as well – to demonstrate what they have learned. In my class, I gave the students a copy of five broad questions in advance. They had one week to consider the questions. Then – when the time came – they were asked to put all notes and books away – to select two of the questions from this list and answer them. This raised quite an objection from the department. First of all, the department doesn’t like essay exams, because they do not believe – and I was told this much on many occasions – that the students – ‘especially the athletes and African Americans’ -- are not capable of putting a sentence together. That really burned me because my top student from lecture 1 to lecture 14 happened to be African American. And I did have one athlete in the course – but he was transferred to another section at the special request of the athletic director when the tutor learned there was no textbook. THAT student ended up failing out of the other section, but in my class – with my approach – and the fact that in my system I bare more responsibility for my students than they do in textbook-centered sections – THAT student would have most likely passed. But I don’t think the department head and the supervisor liked having to entertain a complaint about my course from an athletic director. Secondly, the professors objected to the fact that the grading of essays is not a mathematical process and that I was likely to introduce a number of biases and errors into the grading procedure. I did not want to explain myself – I did not want to SAY anything – I just wanted them to have their will and have this all be over -- but when I was grilled about it – when they DEMANDED an answer from me – I told them I opted to use essays because studying for multiple-choice tests – and the actual taking of the multiple-choice exam -- is not conducive to learning.”

MOYER: “Can you give me a sense of the atmosphere in that classroom as you had to deliver the news to your students? How much blame did you place on the department for the changes?”

EHRENFELS: “None. The supervisor was there – ‘supervising’ the speech – to make sure the transition went smoothly. The department had very specific requirements for my announcement. There were statements they wanted me to make, and there were others they wanted me to avoid. The three professors had spent quite a lot of time deciding how the news should be broken. In short, they wanted me to depict the changes as necessary and to present the department in a positive light. At first the three professors even discussed the possibility of having me tell the students that the changes were MY idea, but ultimately decided that it would be better if I didn’t ‘lie’ to my students. They were insistent that ‘the students should not be the ones to suffer for all this’ – that ‘they had been damaged enough’ by my course. But they knew they simply couldn’t REQUIRE me to make these changes. They knew that it would take more than sheer adjustment on my part to pull this off – and that it was in everyone’s best interest if they offered me some incentive to make this work. So they told me that if the next 6 weeks went to their satisfaction, they ‘just might’ – and they emphasized the word ‘might’ – allow me to teach again.”

MOYER: “How did you feel about that?”

EHRENFELS: “It made me angry. Because I knew they didn’t mean it. As a professor, you don’t go to these lengths – get worked up into THIS kind of frenzy – and then turn around and let me teach. I knew they were just manipulating me. And I was not about to put myself through all this while they dangled a false carrot in front of me. So I decided to tell them that even though I would comply – and would have been willing to comply all along if they had laid down some guidelines – that I was not willing to teach again if I couldn’t teach the best way I knew how. So I said I was officially relinquishing my right to teach. Well, the department head just about erupted. He jumped to his feet and released all that bitterness he had bottled up in that tightly-sphinctered face. He ranted on about how student teaching is a privilege and not a right – as I had called it – and that it was not mine to give up – that only HE could take it away – and that if the department needed me to teach in the future – he could require it.”

MOYER: “So at this point you are thinking they might call on you to teach again.”

EHRENFELS: “BS. I knew they would sooner kiss Freud’s ass than send me into a classroom. He was upset that I was so willing to surrender my teaching privileges. These privileges were the only hold he had over me. He wanted me to know I couldn’t end-run around the basis of his authority – and he wanted to make clear that his authority was absolute. Besides, for every opening for which they take applications from graduate student instructors, they receive no less than six-eight applications. That bit about NEEDING me to teach – it was a red herring. He knew he would never want for an instructor.”

MOYER: “So how did the students take to all this?”

EHRENFELS: “Well – over the 6 weeks that remained the students were caught in a cold war between their instructor and the department leadership. And as best as we tried to keep them in the dark about that – they eventually had to be told. It did not appear that way on the day I announced the changes however. I remember that I delivered the prepared and rehearsed statement – and then per instructions I diagrammed on the board the chain of command within the department and instructed my students to send any complaints through my supervisor first and then through the department head. This was the department’s way of discouraging students from running to the Dean. The department needed to keep these complaints in-house. Per instructions I informed my students that the supervisor would be available just outside the classroom to field any questions and concerns. And I suppose I goaded my students a little by adding, ‘but I think you’ll find no cause for concern.’”

MOYER: “You said that? -- ‘no cause for concern?’”

EHRENFELS: “This plan was designed to have a two-pronged effect. I expected the supervisor not to mind this phrase at all – and possibly even to view it favorably – I just pictured him using this phrase – this is the kind of arrogant thing he would say to me.”

MOYER: “And yet – ”

EHRENFELS: “And yet I knew my students would not appreciate being told how to feel about changes that would could set them back. And sure enough – my two top students approached the supervisor after class to voice their concerns.”

MOYER: “And?”

EHRENFELS: “And this TOO has the desired two-pronged effect. The supervisor was content with the fact he was approached by only two students. This confirmed what he argued all along: that they were saving the students with these changes and that the students would by and large see that. And if he could contain the one or two students who reacted precipitously – who jumped the gun before they can think things through and realize the changes were to implemented to HELP them – then he – and the department --would be in the clear. AND – from what I was told by the students -- his response to the their concerns expressed this sentiment. They spoke of this ‘they’ll-thank-us-later-if-not-sooner-attitude’ to his remarks – this ‘you’ll come to appreciate this’ – ‘this is with your welfare in mind.’ And the students were quite disturbed by what they referred to as his ‘condescending arrogance.’ They didn’t feel he listened to them at all – they felt like he spoke at them – almost from a rehearsed speech – rather than speaking with them – rather than addressing their concerns.”

MOYER: “And what did you tell your students?”

EHRENFELS: “This was a difficult time for me. I had just announced the changes and I was not supposed to encourage my students’ discontent. In fact, I was not allowed to be involved in any way in this appeals process. I am not sure the professors envisioned this – me being approached by my students this way. They underestimated how much my students liked and looked up to me. So did I, perhaps. But this was a time of crisis for them, and so everything was put to the test – and they TURNED to me. I found out at that time how much they respected me and how much they preferred my approach. Now all this would unfold over the next class period. As I alluded to earlier, I think that with the exception of these two students, there was a silence – a non-reaction my supervisor misinterpreted for acceptance. But the silence was palpable – I was tuned into them – and I knew it was less of a non-reaction than a deer-in-the-headlights reaction.”

MOYER: “And did the supervisor attend the next class sessions?”

EHRENFELS: “No – he did not. He would supervise only one more lecture near the end. And because THAT went well – I was actually complimented on my teaching.”

MOYER: “You were complimented?”

EHRENFELS: “On everything. On the way I handled the change and on my lecture. I’ll never forget that he said, ‘see – you can be an excellent teacher. You can DO this,’ in that patronizing tone of his. Like he would be willing to praise Satan himself is Satan will only take his advice. But yeah – on that first day – the students left the classroom with these blank expressions on their faces, not fully comprehending what had transpired, why it had transpired, and what it would mean for their future. I suspect there was a lot of denial in the air that day – that it was not until the students would return for the next class session would the full-bodied meaning of all this hit them. And the two students who had already taken it all in – they already declared their intentions to compose letters to the Dean. And it was at that moment that I realized that the department had created by their own hand the fate they wished to avoid at all costs. One of those two students was almost as old as the supervisor. He was a 40-year-old journalism major. A non-traditional student who enrolled in General Psychology because he thought he would find it interesting. He was really livid. There would have been nothing I could have said to him that could have stopped him outside the fact it could adversely affect my career. But I sensed that it was not my place to stop him. Sure, that is what the department would have expected me to do. But while I agreed not to show my students the door, I’ll be damned if I would decide of my own accord to stand in their way should they find it on their own. And even after that letter was written and mailed, the department still had an opportunity to soften the blow. The supervisor approached me one day and asked me how my students were taking to the changes. And I remembered the day he informed me just before the course again that a professor wanted to avoid at all costs the wrath of the students, because – as he said – ‘they’ll burn you in effigy.’ So I lied to him. I told him the students overcame any doubts they might have had and have come around to see the wisdom and the benefit of the departmental recommendations. In other words, I encouraged him to let down his guard – and it paid off. He was so unprepared for that phone call from the Dean. He was white-as-a-sheet when he told me about the letter the Dean received.”

MOYER: “And the student gave you a copy of that letter, right?”

EHRENFELS: “Yes. The three professors were the last to see it.”

MOYER: “And what effect did it have?”

EHRENFELS: “It forced the three professors to explain what had happened to the Dean. And the Dean instructed the supervisor to contact the student directly and let him know his door was always open. But the Dean would later receive a letter from ANOTHER student in my class, and then he would receive a petition circulated in my wife’s class by one of HER students, and finally, he would receive a letter from the attorney for one of her students. At that time, the Dean must have had just about enough. The supervisor walked into my office and required I implement these changes.”

MOYER: “More changes?”

EHRENFELS: “But these changes re-instated a good deal of the earlier course – my course. But it could not completely re-instate it. No student must be harmed in any way – not by the changes to MY course – and not by the changes to THEIR course. Of course, I don’t think any students actually benefited under the changes grade-wise. Basically, the accommodation specified by the Dean amounted to a series of choices allotted to each student that would allow him or her to leave that course with the highest possible grade under either of the systems. It was a bookkeeping nightmare for me – but it was all worth it – because it was a public relations nightmare for the department. The department got its black eye – and its comeuppance.”

MOYER: “Did it affect the supervisor’s campaign for department head?”

EHRENFELS: “No – he became department head after a national search – but only because the department’s top choice turned down the job. So it was really bittersweet for him. He got the job, but he didn’t want to have to back into it – and he certainly didn’t want to know he wasn’t his colleague’s FIRST choice. But none of these events were influenced in any way by what happened with the teaching apprenticeship.”

MOYER: “And why do you say that?”

EHRENFELS: “Because to THIS day only four of their faculty know about it – and that includes the three professors who were involved with the program. And I suspect the supervisor worked hard to keep it that way. He had an opportunity to give my wife and I a low grade for the teaching apprenticeship seminar. But he gave us both an ‘A.’ And he had an opportunity to discuss my teaching at the end-of-semester evaluation meeting. THAT evidence could have been damning if you add it to everything else they were saying about me in that meeting.”

MOYER: “THAT was the meeting.”

EHRENFELS: “Yes. But he didn’t say anything. And I suspect it was because he knew I was already in trouble – but also because he knew he would have put the final nail into TWO coffins if he HAD. He knew he would have risked bringing everything else about that seminar to light, because if I was cornered in such a way that I had no other choice but to personally address the criticisms, Operation Course Restructuring would have come to everyone’s attention.”

MOYER: “Did you ever teach there again?”

EHRENFELS: “No, I remained true to my word and did NOT apply for a teaching position. Partly because I was too busy trying to blaze a trail through the program requirements so I can get out as quickly as possible – and partly because I knew they were just waiting for the opportunity to deny me. Ever since I started that practicum, those three professors have behaved as if they NEEDED me to NEED something from them.”

MOYER: “And what WAS that?”

EHRENFELS: “Guidance. Approval. I suppose it would have been smart for me to throw them a bone from time to time. I understand that once I devise my own plans for something that I can be pretty much in my own world. I didn’t want to seem unaware or unconcerned with them. And maybe I treated the seminar as just another requirement – as something I was required to do to teach rather than as an opportunity to learn from others. And there ARE professors from whom I do indeed want to learn. But I suppose that this particular supervisor – and his junior sidekick – were not on the list. And there was a point of no return – a point beyond which I felt any proactive conformity on my part would have seemed like transparent sycophancy. But once I knew I was in real trouble – I played ball. I remember the day in my office when I told my wife I intended to put on one of the best acting performances of my life. On the dry erase board I wrote down what I considered the three C’s: conformity, compliance, and compromise. Since that time, I lied to them about how wise their approaches have come to seem to me – and about how well my students responded to it. And they bought the whole act. They want the positive attention and the approval so badly that they refuse to recognize insincerity. And that is sort of a hidden contract between professors and students in graduate school. When students offer up insincere praise for their professors, the professors agree not to treat it as a manipulative ploy. The students get what they want. The professors get what they want. Everyone’s happy.”

MOYER: “What about your wife? Did she apply to teach again?”

EHRENFELS: “Yes – that was sad. She never told them she didn’t want to teach again. And her course was not as radical a departure from the norm as mine. I feel like I called attention to her that would have ordinarily not been placed. I feel like they lumped her in with me. Not that her approach was textbook -- far from it. But she did work out an arrangement with a professor – her advisor actually – to teach the course she always wanted to teach. Personality psychology. Her advisor – who usually teaches that course – intended to open up another section – because his class is usually too full. And this was a first. He was not about to make that class available for anyone else to teach. The course was actually my wife’s idea. My wife offered him a suggestion for how to reduce his class size. He decided in the course of this conversation with my wife that perhaps he should open it up and that it would be an excellent opportunity for her. After all, to be competitive as an applicant for tenure-track assistant professorships some day, you have to have as much teaching experience as possible when you are a student. That was the whole reason I enrolled in the practicum seminar. I knew that to be a credible applicant, a PhD was not sufficient. I needed to have either published some research or taught at least three advanced undergraduate courses, like Personality. So I knew MY goose was cooked. I knew my career was over. All the work I did between my master’s thesis and my doctoral dissertation I did knowing I could never apply for a job. But I did it anyway. I did it to finish what I started – and to participate in that one archetypal experience – the doctoral dissertation and defense.”

MOYER: “So what happened to your wife?”

EHRENFELS: “Well, as was customary, her advisor had to clear his plans for the course with the department head, who had been the supervisor. He liked the idea for the course but refused to allow my wife to teach it. So the department head solicited applications, and ultimately gave the job to some other student.”

MOYER: “Did the department head cite a reason for turning down your wife?”

EHRENFELS: “He told her advisor he did not want a repeat of the General Psychology fiasco. But he knows better than that. The objections to our methods of teaching General Psychology were that our lectures were not representative of the diverse content of the field. But we’re not dealing with diverse content any longer – the issue on the table before us is Personality Psychology – a specialty course. And the second objection to our General Psychology courses was that we drew too heavily from our knowledge and background in Personality. That sounds like a reason to hire my wife. So – I’m pretty sure he played the revenge card here.”

MOYER: “Could I ask you HOW you organized your General Psychology course?”

EHRENFELS: “Yes. Rather than break up the course material by some artificial and arbitrary methods – which is to say into Statistics one week and then the Brain the following week – and then Memory the week after that -- I used HISTORY as the primary organizing principle. I turned the course into a historical course about the evolution of Psychology in Western Civilization from Plato and Aristotle to the contemporary empiricists and Big 5 Trait Psychologists. And I presented the history in terms of the evolution of two separate ways of thinking about human nature such that wherever you are in history, there is something I call a Symbol-Creating Psychology and something I call a Sign-Responding Psychology.”

MOYER: “What is a Symbol-Creating Psychology?”

EHRENFELS: “This kind of psychology is usually a full-bodied attempt at a theory of the psyche, and it tends to emphasize the value and role of irrational functions within the psyche, like the imagination, motivation, emotion, metaphorical thinking, spirituality, and capacities to transcend one’s current state of awareness of environment. Such a psychology treats the behaviors and mental activity of the person as full of symbolism and interpretable. And these behaviors and mental activity are viewed developmentally as a phase in the history of the development of a Self. Time is important as well as history. These psychologies tend to value the role of a DIALECTICAL thinking in the psyche. And you can almost see the dialectical reasoning of the theorists themselves as they build these theories. The purpose of the psyche in these theories is usually some kind of self-realization or self-actualization, some kind of process by which inherent or internal imperatives or potential unfold to fulfillment in three-dimensional awareness or behavior.”

MOYER: “And a Sign-Responding Psychology?”

EHRENFELS: “These theories are usually not your broad theories of the psyche, but your theories that attempt to explain, predict, and control behavior. A typical Sign-Responding Psychology treats the primary motivation of the person as one of adjusting to the requirements of the EXTERNAL world. These psychologies emphasize the relationship to the external world of superficial or gross aspects of the person. These theories emphasize the value and role of rational functions within the mind, such that it is by these rational processes by which irrational thoughts are produced. These processes exhibit the properties of what is known as a DEMONSTRATIVE thinking. And clearly the theoretician exhibited demonstrative reasoning in his or her creation of this theory. And the primary motivation of the person – if any – is considered to be hedonism or adjustment. But in many cases, these are small theories that are not as much about a person per se as they are about a particular process or function within the person that may or may not be assumed to be synonymous with the whole. But there is seldom an explicit position taken on motivation or emotion, and the most sophisticated or complex characteristics of this kind of rational processes may be modeled after AI – for example – concepts like recursive loops – or mathematics.”

MOYER: “Can you give me some example of theories for each approach?”

EHRENFELS: “Yes, and I will do it in contemporaneous pairs, with the Symbol-Creating first so you could understand the contrast at various points in history. Plato-Aristotle – ah – Kant-Locke – Freud-Darwin – Jung-Skinner – or Rogers-Skinner. But once the professionalization of Psychology was set in motion – the procedures and requirements of the field started to categorically favor the Sign-Responding Psychology. In fact, I would say that for perhaps the first time in history, we see that a time is – for all intents and purposes – pretty much synonymous with one approach. Modern Psychology IS Sign-Responding Psychology.”

MOYER: “So THIS is what your supervisor objected to.”

EHRENFELS: “No. Not quite. My supervisor was never aware of my approach. I started to explain it to him once. He phoned my residence one day upset with my syllabus. I wanted to explain to him my rationale for having designed it that way – not to try to save it – but to let him know there was extensive thinking and planning behind my decisions. But he stopped me three words in, saying ‘I don’t want to hear it.’ He never let me finish my sentence. I never had a chance to explain to him that what he disliked so much about my approach was a product of hard work – not simple prejudice or whim. If anything his response was symptomatic of the fact it was HIS approach – it was what HE wanted for General Psychology – that was based on a prejudice and whim. We call them conventions. And the fact they are ‘professional’ or ‘consensual’ does not make them any less prejudicial or whimsical. No – it was LITTLE things that first sensitized him to the fact I was ‘off the reservation.’”

MOYER: “Little things.”

EHRENFELS: “Like the fact I seldom reserved an overhead projector. As far as he is concerned, everyone should have one in the room and plugged in for every class. And we should make overheads a regular part of our lectures. Give the students something to look at. Like the Perception lecture – that is when all the transparencies illustrating the standard illusions come off the shelf. The Muller-Lyer illusion – the Ponzo illusion – the moon illusion. We must spend an entire class in show-and-tell with these illusions, but we don’t understand much about how they work – and about why we see what we see – and what we DO know doesn’t really help us understand much. It is like a piece of fascinating trivia. In my opinion, it’s all smoke-and-mirrors to keep the class interested and make the students think we are interesting. But I think the illusions are dull – I mean – so we perceive these two equally-long arrows as being of different lengths because of the direction in which the carrots at the end are facing – so what? – what’s it to you? -- what’s it to Psychology?”

MOYER: “Not a fan of the overhead.”

EHRENFELS: “They were really upset with the fact I lectured all the time. They treated it as some kind of chemical imbalance. Like I needed to hold more discussion groups, perform more demonstration experiments, and use more multi-media in order to reach out to diverse learning styles. That is the latest fad – pop psycho-educational trash. I am corrected whenever I use the term ‘teaching objectives.’ I am told the correct term -- and the correct attitude implied by the correct term – is ‘learning objectives.’ Like I can’t possibly have my students’ interests at heart if I am using the wrong term. They try to make me feel like I am some tyrant for standing up in front of the class and talking to my students. I really feel as if they are trying to indict me on some verbal abuse charge. The lecture is part of that old-time professorial style they are trying to break away from for the mere appearance of PROGRESS – and until I do – I will be considered some kind of racist whose intolerant and non-cosmopolitan approach discriminates against students who learn differently than I teach. Well, I have a style too! And my learning style is conducive to MY kind of teaching style. I like to play to my strengths. I happen to think I am selling my students short if I try do anything other than teach to my strengths – give them MY best. You know, this whole notion of balance. None of their theories exhibit it. They despite all theories based on homeostatic mechanisms because they do not lend themselves to the conventional research methods. Yet they embrace it where they see it in teaching, as if they’ve had some kind of awakening. Well, some of us are sophisticated enough intellectually to have entertained and incorporated notions of balance in our theories. I teach theories of balance. So I may not BALANCE – or should I say JUGGLE -- diverse learning styles while I do it. I would leave these to balance out ACROSS instructors rather than WITHIN the classroom of each individual instructor. A student will have many different professors across his or her 5-year, 124-credit career. You know, instructors find creative ways to waste time in these classes. You’d be surprised how much room you can make in a General Psychology course if you minimize the gratuitous, protracted, and political material. But the major reason why I did it ‘my way’ so to speak was not because I was a rebel or because I was arrogant or unwilling to adjust – as they would have you believe – but because I did not feel I could develop as a surrogate. Naturally, the professors disagree on that score. They claim that the best way to learn how to teach is to model the behavior of teachers – and they may be right if they meant ‘a teacher just like them.’ But I am not a clone. But you know what? I would have served as a clone if I sensed I was required to be one earlier in the course. The truth of the matter is that because they didn’t expect anyone to ever depart from the norm, they gave us no guidelines and – yes even patted themselves on the back for – giving their student-apprentices ‘a lot of latitude.’”

MOYER: “Really? So did you ever discuss that with them?”

EHRENFELS: “Yes. I raised that. And you know what they said? They said, well we didn’t want to have to look like bad guys. And they resented me for forcing them to lay down some guidelines. You know, I don’t think they like themselves very much. If they did, they wouldn’t go to such great lengths – like denial and reaction formation – to avoid seeing themselves in a mirror. If they don’t like their guidelines – or if they don’t like the way they look enforcing them – then maybe they should reconsider some things. But if you claim to give me latitude, I WILL take it. I will take every inch you give me. And I did! And they got their first look at real latitude – real freedom -- and they learned they didn’t like it very much. When I taught – what I hated most was to oversimplify. Some details I think are gratuitous and these are the ones that pander to some motive other an adequate understanding. But I really detested the simplification in which these instructors foster in their students the belief that approaches like behaviorism are unified and uniform within their borders. They are quite keen on showing the diversity between approaches, but I also liked to show the variation WITHIN movements, and I liked to give my students a feel for the debates and difficult questions that people within these movements wrestle with. I suspect this approach is unpopular because it threatens the public view of Psychology as a well-ORGANIZED science. And the difference BETWEEN movements – that is presented as logical steps in history – as advancements – not as disagreements at any or every point in time. To present this material in the way I wish it to be presented would be in their opinion to present Psychology as – well – almost chaotic.”