University of Arizona icon Jeff Greenberg, Sheldon Solomon's co-author on terror management theory and research, contacted Ehrenfels with support for his adaptation of the theory to the politics of professional development and career advancement in academic society.

Vaunted researchers Greenberg, Solomon, and even the unpronounceable Pyszczynski became household names within psychology doctoral programs with their publication of The causes and consequences of a need for self-esteem: A terror management theory (1986). The seminal theory explained the evolution of cultural symbols and belief systems to manage anxieties associated with threats to our self-esteem and with an existential awareness of our own mortality (coping with threats to ego and existence).

The theory, which had risen to prominence on its own merits in the 80s, became particularly fashionable in a post 9/11 era in which individuals around the world face terrorist threats from abroad. Believing George W. Bush may have exploited threats to the lives of individual Americans (and their national pride) for political gain, Solomon embarked on a solo project to research claims by "people all over" that the President, in an effort to scare up votes for his re-election, declares an imminent threat when his image is threatened. Even while the finished paper lagged in the publication waiting room, a Reuters journalist wired news of the findings in time for the pre-November electorate.

Responding to the Reuters report, Ehrenfels turned Solomon's theory back on Solomon's community, claiming psychology professors also used "psychological pressures" to groom generations of academics: "The student has to be socialized into academic culture. Whether you want to call them scare tactics or junior colleague pressure ... fear is the active ingredient in the socialization [process]." (Ehrenfels, Note to Solomon: How Psychology's Harmonious and Homogeneous Community Was Engineered by Fear, 2004).

Solomon's serial co-author Jeff Greenberg generally agreed with Ehrenfels's assessment in this unsolicited correspondence: "Wyatt-- i agree with most of your points building off of our terror management work and are glad you like our theory. we do think it applies well to academia and psychology, little hero systems designed to assuage the terror of its members. but some professors and programs use fear less than others, or at least i like to think so. the two publications you referred to are based on different studies, and we continue to pursue this political line of inquiry as well as others. i've attached a recent relevant paper i thought you might find interesting." (August 3, 2005)

Wyatt Ehrenfels was pleased that Greenberg extended him this courtesy. "I am grateful to Greenberg for taking the time to express his support for this application of his theory. People exchange e-mails almost routinely, and are likely to underestimate the magnitude of a gesture like this, when a scientist of Greenberg's stature writes a colleague let alone a dislocated academic like myself. To have taken the time to read my editorial is enough of a compliment, but to write the author to express agreement with the controversial analysis is to assume some risk. Granted, this is Greenberg. His work is required reading in graduate level social psychology. When you build a career for yourself as large as Greenbergs, your classes become a draw, your research brings in funds for the university, you field requests for appearances on National Public Radio, and you receive letters from college seniors bidding to be your next assistant (i.e. your busy). I'm flattered he should spend a few of his idiosyncrasy credits on a modest endorsement of one of my arguments. (Not that any psych prof ever really attains true diva status, though the West Coast Offense of Elizabeth Loftus [rabid debunker of repressed memories] and Marcia Linehan [founder of handy Dialectical Behavior Therapy] conjure such imagery). And yes I agree with Greenberg when he says that not all departments of psychology are equal in this use of fear which -- idiosyncrasy credits or not --he needs to say to avoid being stoned by colleagues at the University of Arizona ["What do you mean we use fear tactics?"]). So I am very pleased that he extended me this courtesy.

I am also pleased that his colleague also extended me the courtesy of personal correspondence, though Sheldon Solomon was less impressed. In an e-mail arriving just hours after Greenberg's (and during the first draft of this report), a curmudgeonly dispeptic Solomon writes "I very much enjoyed reading (on your Fireflies in the Shadow of the Sun web site) your excellently ignorant misrepresentation of our research demonstrating that subtle reminders of death have a profound influence on Americans' attitudes towards charismatic leaders in general and George W. Bush in particular. Generally a real scientist with integrity will examine the actual studies rather than make absurd and unwarranted assertions from newspaper accounts of them (only research accepted for publication in peer-reviewed journals that is available for public scrutiny are allowed media exposure in the sciences), and although I doubt you're the kind of person to let your theoretical biases be undermined by facts I am appending the research reports of these experiments (they are different studies contrary to your assertion in your blustery tirade) to this message in case you have the time, inclination, or professional expertise to critically evaluate them. Our work may be flawed but this can only be determined by actually reading it and to conduct relevant research to contradict our findings if you think there are theoretical or empirically problematic." (August 3, 2005)

Surprised by the barrage of personal correspondence, Ehrenfels attributed the e-mails to a critical mass of visits from the University of Arizona. "In recent weeks, I noticed in my raw access logs visitors whose IP addresses I traced to this university. Perhaps a student or colleague brought my report to the attention of Dr. Greenberg ... As for the nature of the responses, I was also pleasantly surprised by the fact Greenberg and Solomon replied independently. Breaking with tradition in Psychology, it did not appear as though they consulted with one another before deciding what to think of the report, nor did they appear to collaborate beforehand with the intention of presenting a unified front. It's quite possible that, wedged between cross-winds, one professor [Greenberg] was influenced primarily by how my application did justice to terror management theory, while his colleague [Solomon] emphasized the manner in which my application detracted from the collective self-esteem of his research community. My reports have a way of tripping wired defenses in denizens of the psychological community, but less from sheltered academics (for whom I rank somewhere between impertinence and unmentionable) than from flamboyantly churlish clinicians ... "

Bare in mind, my editorial did not really criticize Solomon's research. As Solomon accurately noted, some of my comments were delivered from ignorance meaning that I was making it plain to my readers that I was assuming Solomon's research was like most (i.e. in the same mold as much contemporary social psychological research). In other words, I was speaking hypothetically in my use of conditional and probabalistic statements, something Psychology's scientists do routinely when they write research papers. Some things about Solomon's work could be known from the Reuters wire report, and I made some educated guesses or hypotheses about the characteristics of the research that could not be known at that particular time (which is why Greenberg and Solomon were so eager to mail me copies of their work). One of the studies on which the Reuters report was based was not available until December, 2004 and, having personally encountered the effects of liberal principles on the management of psychology departments and communities, I was naturally roused to heights of skepticism by the Reuters report. I am pleased Greenberg and Solomon reminded me that I neglected to follow-up on this particular editorial by driving to the nearest university library (once the research became available). However, I stand by my efforts to raise these questions when the findings of politically activist research are disseminated ostensibly to effect the results of an election in the absence of the published research. I did make it clear in my essay that I based my casual observations on the Reuters report (and not on the original research), and that there was nothing less appropriate about responding to the only available source at the only available time. Solomon himself was seizing the day with respect to the time-bound events of the Presidential campaign about which he was writing. I would think he'd respect the fact my commentary was forced to adopt the same deadline as his political agenda. I don't think there's any doubt as to the incursion of politics into the scholarly motive (not that there's anything wrong with that), but what in the name of Jerry Seinfeld am I to make of three rapid-fire publications citing Bush as the agent of terror in American politics? What am I to make of the fact the researchers draw from the much-maligned Berkeley paper Political conservatism as motivated social cognition raked over the coals in the press for unscholarly activism?

I am not so daft as to forget that this is social psychology, and social psychologists are entitled to their political lines of inquiry. But readers could be forgiven for suspecting that that behind the political line of inquiry is a political agenda. Clearly someone thought the research findings should be broadcast to the public months in advance of its scheduled printing and in plenty of time for the 2004 Presidential Election (giving the trio of research projects a Michael Moorish stalking quality). And I'm not sure I can fault them for this. While mortality salience is a salient issue in post 9/11 life (reagrdless of G.W. Bush), the TMT researchers designed and presented their research in such a way as to de-emphasize the universality of their work in favor of contemporary political discourse. Knowing that in a post-election (and especially a post-Bush) era, their research papers have an eminently forgetful quality about them, they reached out to the press to stake their headline and place in history. Some flames burn, some flames last. TMT researchers decided they preferred to burn. I personally would have designed a methodology estranged from political events to accentuate the underlying archetype and give the findings their timeless quality. And they may very well do that. When you divide the work with as many co-authors as you do, you can produce multiple research projects concurrently, and variations of the 'mortality salience' research already abound.

I also can't fault them for wanting recognition for their work. The work of the typical university professor collects dust in university libraries, accessible only to students required to perform literature searches for homework assignments.

But clearly someone in the TMT camp thought the public should have it ahead of the Presidential election. The research also makes reference to much-maligned boondoggle titled "Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition" (Jost, Glaser, Kruglanski, & Sulloway) which used a multi-million NIH and NSF grant to characterize political conservatives as cognitively dysfunctional. The characteristics of this cognitive dysfunction (i.e. rigidity, dogmatism, intolerance of ambiguity, fear, aggression, an endorsement of inequality, opposition to change, and decreased cognitive complexity)comprise a personality type (i.e. the Archie Bunker type) heavily researched in the 60s (i.e. authoritarianism). It was a tragedy/travesty to say the least that authoriarianism became synonymous within academic circles with the term "right-wing authoritarianism." Despite a handful of references to a "left-wing authoritarianism," the idea that liberals, including liberal psychology professors, can and do exhibit authoritarian characteristics was all-but repressed. And many liberal psychology professors have hijacked science for the purpose of staking a claim to mental health and credibility.

To spend some time with psychology professors is to discover that they aspire to national recognition. They not only want to be respected as representatives of a rank-and-file science, they want to be champions of underrepresented populations. But behind a fetishistic rhapsodizing about multiculturalism/diversity -- behind a paternalistic regard for the welfare of their students and the public -- is a hatred for a diversity of ideas and interests -- a professorial campaign against individual talent and freedom. Their political salvos strike me as extensions of the way they demonize graduate students who do not perfectly fit their culture. There is a form of black-and-white thinking among psychology professors, limiting the depth of their diversity so that it is only skin-deep. And I have compiled quite a record of what these serviceable standard bearers do to graduate students they perceive as unconventional. They place such stringent demands on membership in their academic and professional community that the homogeneity and pressures to uniformity are difficult to ignore and, in my educated and experienced opinion, this "culture" works against their maturation as adults, against their individuation as true scientists/practitioners/professionals, and against real progress in the advancement of knowledge about many classes of phenomena.

Again, I have no problem with TMT researchers pursuing a political line of inquiry. But there should be some researchers standing on the other side to that political line ... Who in the field of social psychology is researching left-wing authoritarianism? And why not? Because there's more left-wing authoritarianism inside departments of Psychology than in the 103rd Congress ... There should be less towing the political line. And most importantly, there should be more to social psychology ...

... I remain disappointed by the politicization of a theory with the potential to expand our understanding of psychological life. The theory began with so much promise in the 80s, and 9/11 redirected its authors in much the same way many liberals point out that 9/11 altered the course of the Bush Presidency. This is not to say the research is not important. Quite the contrary. But 9/11 (and the post 9/11 preoccupation with mortality salience) blinded social psychologists to the broader significance of terror management. In its original form terror management theory encompasses threats to ego as well as to existence. People's lives are fraught with all sorts of humiliation (if we think of humiliation as encompassing failures to advance our needs and wishes). Humiliations as inexorable as death itself. So pervasive is humiliation as to have a formative role in the micro- and macroeconomic development of the personality, from daily stock-market like fluctations to cataclysmic vicissitude, to the underlying tectonics of individuation. And terror management itself can be expanded into a discussion of the role of all sorts of symbols and beliefs in various psychological economies. How do symbols cause (and how are they created or affected by) the transfer of value (which may be conceptualized as salience, affect, interest) across entities (beliefs, objects or activities)?

Some of the classic scholars interested in the psychological life were given to thinking in the language of theoretical constructs, applying analogues of thermodynamic laws to a 'moment in the life of' viewed as a closed system of finite energy. There were some great ideas there, though the ideas of these clinicians were never really explored in university research. In their laziness, academics allowed their skepticism for the applied clinical aspects of the metatheories (the most remarkable of which is penis envy) to blind them to the real value of these theories (i.e. structural and dynamic principles of the models of human consciousness or personality). Dismissed as metatheory, the phenomenological value of these perspectives, and the promise of new economic phenomenologies (or phenomenological economies) was never realized. The erosion of this theoretical scope and depth of understanding is evident in the transition from Old Social Psychology, with its insights into the dynamics of small groups, organizations, and other collectives, to New Social Psychology, mired in junior varsity research on prejudice and gender identity. Terror management researchers have convinced me that some small ball is still big news -- works of immediate social import -- but we don't really move forward as a science and expand the pie of knowledge until we bring back the grown ups and digs up the lost macroeconomic aspect buried under the rubble.

2. I'm a bit alarmed by the epidemic of group publishing in this field, which is an interesting social phenomenon in its own right, but I think that from a standpoint of discrimination and adverse impact, this practice works against independent thinking, puts people who think independently at a career disadvantage, and undermines the science of phenomena that require independent thinking. I raise these issues not to make examples of Greenberg, Solomon, or any other individual researcher, as to do so would be to do the very thing I suspect some of these researchers of doing with President Bush (i.e. disguising research about Bush as research about leadership styles). And once again, many researchers have to do what they do to survive, to establish themselves, and after that, to facilitate the day-to-day business of being a researcher. I think that the more individuals work in networks, which has many necessary benefits I won't enumerate here, the more we see an erosion of the quality of products (e.g. thought) coming out of individuals.

Political lines of inquiry have political consequences. The public reading the Reuters report is not likely to jam switchboards with requests for reprints of the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin (September) and Psychological Science articles (the latter of which was not due to be published until after the election). But in all fairness to Solomon and Co., and this is where my report went wrong, I operated under the misapprehension the same research paper was published in two distinct journals (which eould have violated an unwritten policy in academic psychology). Contributing to the misapprehension is the fact the two papers (more like conjoined twins) are actually very similar Bush-bashing research projects with strikingly similar titles submitted concurrently ... and by committee I might add. In what has sadly become common practice in departments of psychology, it took nine different professors across nine different universities to produce one 13-page paper (which frees each of these fellows up to collaborate on other projects simultaneously). Sheesh! In a world that I would like to associate with true divergent (i.e. independent) thinking rather than activist gangbanging, I was disappointed by the epidemic of group-publishing. And it seems that the number of collaborators grows over the years. At this rate, by the year 2100 all psychological research will resemble press releases from the Public Policy Advocacy division of the APA. While it's easier for those using this division of labor to work with faster turnaround and minimum effort -- and while the group as a whole piggybacks off the reputation of the most advanced member of the herd -- it puts scholars working independently at a decisive disadvantage and exposes the academic community to the hackneyed barb beginning "how many psych profs does it take to ...". (While members of a peer review committee might react to a submission from a novice or unknown by thinking "who's this roob?" or "never heard of him," this same roob can build quite a starter CV by co-authoring research with established names). The terror management research cartel may not have submitted the same paper to multiple journals, but I cannot help but feel the rat pack approach to making music in this field borders a bit on cheating and contributes to a systemic discrimination against certain personalities, work ethics, and classes of phenomena. This is not to say I think the world isn't a better place with the terror management research cartel, but wouldn't you think there's an anti-trust law somewhere that applies to this kind of collective behavior? [har har]

Cognitive dissonance died with its creator after 10 years of research that amounted to a somnolent load of wank (assuming he is in fact deceased or just seems that way). By contrast, psychoanalysis survived the death of its originator. While psychoanalysis does not interest me much as a theory (and Lord knows psychodynamic concepts have never been empirically researched in the a way suitable to psychodynamic phenomena), I'd rather see Terror Management Theory go the way of Freud than the way of Festinger. This field desperately needs thinkers who can envision a phenomenological and clinical relevance of social psychological concepts beyond the artificial walls of their own fiefdom. Personality psychology died in part because academics in other branches cut their ties to personality. (Nor did it help matters that personality psychologists cut their ties to personality).

Nothing in my writing suggested that I believed the motives of the researcher(s) compromised the quality (i.e. technical merits) of the research. I merely relayed my concerns about the scope and depth of the politically charged research. Academics have a habit of breaking up their research into dozens of highly circumscribed projects, allowing for an abundance of alternative explanations to fall between the cracks (i.e. micro-studies). While this is the norm for academics required to publish rigorous papers on a career timetable, there are risks associated with research that is not only rife with political implications, but which specifically targets a politician by name in a salacious phase of the election cycle. And while the authors want their readers to believe Bush and Kerry are used as examples in research that's really about different types of leaders, one can be forgiven for wondering whether different categories of leadership were not developed for the purposes of making statements about one political candidate in particular. Again, there is nothing unethical about this. It's well within their purview as social psychologists. And, for the record, the terror management researcher's use of separate ANOVAs on subscales of the PANAS to rule out a contribution to mood by mortality salience shows the kind of attention to detail (i.e. alternative explanations) you want to see from responsible social psychologists in this field (i.e. personally invested in science, and scientifically invested in their research).

I'd still like to know how the Reuters journalist obtained a copy of the research months ahead of its publication. But hey -- that's just me.

" ... So having said this, it should be evident that the theory itself (and much of the research derived from the theory) is absolutely vital to our field. It bridges the chasm between the classic works of dead intellectuals and the braindead empiricists of the modern era of ADHD science. I think the three plus amigos of terror management should be proud of the conceptual and aesthetic elegance of their theory, and its role in research, less so for its role as a force behind frivolous than meaningful empiricism (and this theory, like cognitive dissonance, inspires both). And since my assessment of Solomon's work (as portrayed by the Reuters report) never included an intention to contradict Solomon's findings, there is no need for Solomon to agitate to performance-enhanced levels of the bravura with which he and his colleagues multiplied-and-divided their seminal research throughout the decades.

I'd like to thank both Drs. Greenberg and Solomon for forwarding (virus-free) copies of Mortality Salience, Martyrdom, and Military Might: The Great Satan versus the Axis of Evil. I'd like to especially thank Dr. Solomon for also forwarding me (virus-free) copies of Fatal Attraction: The Effects of Mortality Salience on Evaluations of Charismatic, Task-Oriented and Relationship-Oriented Leaders, American Roulette: The effect of reminders of death on support for George W. Bush in the 2004 Presidential Election, and [pause to take breath] Deliver Us From Evil: The Effects of Mortality Salience and Reminders of 9/11 on Support for President George W. Bush. I promise these articles will be reviewed, and any additional implications for the use of fear by the academic community will be reported (and greatly appreciated).

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 FAQ Discredited: Wyatt Ehrenfels

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