Seligman Expected to Resign at Convention
Anonymous
off in the post above (and quoted below). I will add that now for
interested readers, picking up right where the other post left off):
... The fact that only 2 sorts of control groups (placebo and waitlist)
are used is very telling. This leaves all questions about the efficacy
of "professionals" vs. other reasonable sources of help unanswered and
IN ONE MAJOR WAY does not allow us to locate the most serious problems
objectively and concentrate professional resources there. Where new
treatments need to be developed they are not. Also it does not allow us
to to get indications about the utility of briefly trained peer
counselors or "paraprofessionals," so as to provide more helpers. That
way we could have more help and more accessible help where possible and
prudent. The negligence is overwhelming. ARE THEY GOING TO CONTINUE TO
FAIL TO RATIONALLY INVESTIGATE PROVIDING A SYSTEM OF MENTAL HEALTH
PERSONNEL?? ARE AREAS, WHERE A CONCENTRATION OF EFFORTS ARE NEEDED TO
DEVISE NEW OR BETTER TREATMENTS, GOING TO REMAIN UNFOUND??? Pretentious
clinical psychologists are our killing children right now. They have
been exposed. The sort of answer needed has been outlined. Someone will
bring this field down soon if changes are not made.
Complaints of gross negligence should be filed against the APA
frequently. Only by hitting "deep-pockets" can we force and assure
quality treatments.
Some Concluding Remarks:
HMOs are squeezing out mental health care AND it is the field's own
fault ! Why? Two big reasons: (1) Basic foundation research to show that
professionals are better than other reasonable sorts of helpers (e.g.
well selected and trained peer counselors or "paras") have not been
done. The last well controlled study done on this was done in 1979 and
it showed the other reasonable helpers just as good for a broad range of
problems. Supposedly progress has been made, but the field is too
cowardly to test themselves or establish the basic foundation for their
field. I have argued how these studies, using more briefly trained (and
well-selected) "other helpers," are just as ethical as many of the
"efficacy" or effectiveness studies done nowadays. AND, I have ALSO
argued how these studies ARE NECESSARY to help illuminate those problems
for which special methods need *yet* to be developed. The
counseling/clinical psychology field has let us down. We are all
suffering because of this. And because of the low credibility of the
field and the lack of clear results and established procedures in many
areas, HMOs are providing GROSSLY inadequate mental health care. AGAIN,
it is the field's fault, basically for the reason just outlined above
AND because of (2) (below):
(2) The field has yet to establish any common sort of REAL
science-practitioner role that would result in MUCH MUCH more work being
done to show inter-rater reliabilities to diagnoses (or problem
identifications) and with subsequent treatments and results. Many in the
field of counseling/clinical psychology LARGELY FALSELY claiming a
"science-practitioner" role. This is typically at least largely a fraud.
Typically clinicians do not work within individual agencies developing
and showing any inter-rater reliabilities. Because of this, we KNOW they
are not science-practitioners. I have gone on to argue that they do not
even operate IN ACCORD with science, for there are too few studies and
FAR too few continuing studies for there to be clear procedures to model
for most problems. Thus, for most problems, "therapists" do not even
operate IN ACCORD with science (like your local M.D. most often does).
Being an intelligent "science reader" and extrapolating
idiosyncratically from studies does not make one a science practitioner,
in even the loosest sense. To be a science *reader* is not even a
particularly professional activity; many intelligent lay persons can do
this (and EXTRAPOLATE AS WELL). BECAUSE THERE ARE OFTEN NO STANDARD,
ESTABLISHED PROCEDURES FOR PROBLEMS, HMOS ARE GOING BY THE MORE
EXTRAVAGANT CLAIMS OF SUCCESS, DENYING MANY OF US THE NEEDED CARE. At
the same time, some problems are not being treated because they are not
seen as treatment worthy or treatable. THE **FIELD ITSELF** IS TO BE
BLAMED.
** FOOTNOTE **: The way progress in developing "better" diagnostic
criteria proceeds today illustrates what is wrong with the way things
operate and are done today. It displays the lack of appreciation for the
grassroots INDUCTIVE work that, it seems to me, has to be done. True,
the "diagnostic options" decided on by the DSM COMMITTEES every decade
or so *are tested* AFTER THE FACT for inter-rater reliability (AS I
MYSELF AM AWARE, and as I indicated in the essay). BUT, the problem is:
Do you wait for rare committee meetings to try to piece together a set
of best "options" on a relatively rare basis OR do you strive for better
reliabilities for criteria *AND better criteria* more often, on a more
local level ?? Yes, PEOPLE must first have "guesses" about what might be
better criteria and *then* investigate them. BUT this need not ALL be
done by rare committees ALONE doing this work. Doing virtually all such
diagnostic development work JUST by committee (meeting every decade or
so) is loaded on a hypothetico-deductive side as opposed to a
grassroots, more inductive, discovery (and yes, trial and error)
approach.
One could argue that INDEED you DO (and MUST) **DISCOVER*** the
better criteria, rather than formulate them en masse in our heads during
"big committee" meetings. What our present attitude suggests, and what
is done now, is the figuring of nature out in our heads and then (only
afterward) testing your limited range of relatively constrained ideas.
Wouldn't it be better for some local consistent (**everyday**) work to
go on to find criteria that are understandable and show (demonstrate)
inter rater reliabilities and also relate to disorders? SHOULDN'T THIS
AT LEAST BE DONE *IN ADDITION* TO THE inter-rater reliability work
associated every decade or so with "committee work" ? PRESENTLY THIS IS
NOT DONE, AND I WOULD ARGUE IS ONE BIG THING THAT HOLDS UP DEVELOPMENT
OF THE FIELD. We are basically both being pompous and pretentious, while
at the same time abdicating basic science responsibilities.
---------------------------------------------
In article <1998072718...@sirius.infonex.com>,
anon_m...@alias.cyberpass.net (Amer_Psych_Assoc) wrote:
> Martin Seligman, having not reasonably responded to the long standing
> formal complaints lodged against the APA and having not enforced any
> response from the APA staff in this regard, is expected to resign his
> post as sitting President of the APA. This should occur at the
> convention. This is what we expect. He should be doing this recognizing
> his shameful dereliction of duty. The very same charges of negligence
> lodged against APA officer McCarty (in a post quoted below) could be
> lodged against Seligman.
>
> For some background on this matter, I quote Brad Jesness hereon. (I will
> begin with a description of Seligman's "postion", which seems to be
> behind the lack of response.):
>
> Martin Seligman would like to have the field founded on premises that
> have NOT been subjected to reasonable scientific investigation, while he
> intentionally neglects basic, NEEDED scientific research.
>
> Martin Seligman concerns himself mainly with the issue of
> "effectiveness" and NOT "efficacy" (using his own words). What this
> amounts to is the fact that Martin Seligman wants to hold to tenets of
> *belief* (i.e. faith) that HAVE NOT been subject to reasonable
> scientific investigation (and may well not be subject to such standards
> of evidence in the forseeable future). He contents himself with the
> Consumer Reports study. He ALSO puts forth the UNPROVEN NOTION that
> "effectiveness" should be considered something distinct from that which
> is investigated in the efficacy study paradigm. He calls upon us to
> hold the field in high regard based on weak, biased, ambiguous data AND
> blindly accept this last-mentioned NOTION.
>
> At the same time, based upon his unfounded NOTION (and tenet of faith)
> **AND** based on an irrational defensiveness, Seligman ignores and shows
> no interest in clearly needed efficacy studies. Some of the reseach
> that has not yet been done using the standard sort of efficacy paridigm
> is scientifically *necessary* and is *basic foundation research* for the
> field. Not promoting this research is scientifically unacceptable and
> is negligent and unethical. Brad, on his web site, has clearly
> described some of this needed research. He has also clearly described
> the rationale for, and importance of, this research and has clearly
> argued how it is MORE ethical than many of the efficacy studies done
> today.
> --------------
>
> Brad has put forth a VERY well-founded, clear critique of major problems
> in the clinical field. He provides us with a 40-page paper at
> http://www.future.net/~bradj/it.html describing the situation, his
> concerns, and offering solutions !! Some of what Brad describes is
> simply a **clear LACK** of some needed basic foundation research and
> some needed and lacking science work (or procedures). **NO ONE** has
> ever been able to say that this is not the case. IT IS !!
>
> Brad has outlined a major sort of study that has been irrationally
> (defenisvely) and wrongly avoided. This has amounted to nothing less
> than gross negligence in any area pretending to be a science. The sort
> of study he outlines is a type of study using the standard therapy
> efficacy research paridigm (see his web page for specifics). While
> some (no doubt honestly) initially thought this research might be
> unethical, Brad has clearly argued that this research is in fact MORE
> ETHICAL than much of the efficacy work done today. (Brad's clear
> argument appears on the above-mentioned web page.) No one has offered a
> single specific on how this is not the case (*including Seligman*, who
> fled the discussion early on and has been seen on the internet since).
> The sort of efficacy study Brad argues for would tell us MUCH we need to
> know and is **basic foundation research**. Avoiding this issue is not
> only unscientific, but immoral and unethical. It is worse than living a
> lie; NOT to recognize the need for this research and to promote it is
> engaging in *active deception.* It is basically fraud. YET, this is
> precisely what Seligman and the APA are doing. They are indecently
> immoral and unethical, in addition to being unscientific. They are a
> disgrace to humankind, not just a disgrace to the field. They do not
> even reply to a member in response to *official complaints* lodged
> against the APA as an accrediting body !!! THIS IS TOTALLY
> UNACCEPTABLE. We have a biased, self-serving *immoral* guild union
> accrediting counseling/clinical programs in higher ed. !!!
>
> Secondly (on his web site), Brad makes excellent points on how
> interrater reliabilities on standard classification (or diagnostic)
> criteria have NOT beeen generated and why this is so. He sites as his
> source the DSM-IV Sourcebook, Vol. 2. This is a thousand page summary
> of the research that has beeen done (and clearly showing what HAS *NOT*
> been done) since the last DSM revision. It included a review of all
> pertinent literature, including all the pertinent work by
> psychologists. THIS is a grave lacking !! Brad AGAIN has shown it up
> and a mature response is warranted.
>
> ---------------------------------------------
>
> >From B. Jesness (quoted to the group at his request):
>
> >Dear Richard Suinn ([similar note also sent to Martin Seligman]):
> > I am getting NO RESPONSE to my complaints from ANYONE at the APA.
The ONLY note I have *EVER* gotten was not directly regarding my formal
complaints. This came in the last few days from the executive director
for science, Richard McCarty. I shall quote his note in-full below (and
below that I shall quote my own response to this "retort"). McCarty's
note is the ONLY response of any sort I have ever received from *any*
office or *any* officer of the APA IN MORE than A YEAR. As you recall I
have filed my complaints with every relevant office and officer and they
have had my complaints for a year+. (These complaints may be seen in the
last section and in the "appendix" of the large first paper at
http://www.future.net/~bradj/it.html) regards, brad jesness (assoc.
memnber APA):
> >
> >>From: "Richard C. McCarty" <r...@server1.mail.virginia.edu>
> >>Sender: r...@server1.mail.virginia.edu
> >>To: br...@future.net
> >>Subject: Re: A FOURTH E-mail: Related matters.
> >>Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 02:00:47 -0400 ()
> >>Priority: NORMAL
> >>X-Authentication: IMSP
> >>MIME-Version: 1.0
> >>
> >>Mr. Jesness:
> >>
> >>If you have problems with a particular line of research or
> >>an approach taken by a profession, I suggest the following:
> >>
> >>1. Subject your ideas to the peer-review process of
> >>journals in the field.
> >>
> >>2. Find like-minded individuals and start your own
> >>professional organization.
> >>
> >>3. Work within the framework of an exisiting organization
> >>to change it in ways that you think are important.
> >>
> >>I do not work for the "psychology police". My job does not
> >>include any of the tasks you are asking me to undertake.
> >>You must work within an exisiting system or create your own.
> >>
> >>Sincerely,
> >>
> >>Richard McCarty
> >>
> >>***************************************
> >>Richard McCarty
> >>Professor and Chair
> >>Department of Psychology
> >>University of Virginia
> >>Charlottesville, VA 22903-2477
> >>804-982-4750 (office)
> >>804-982-4766 (FAX)
> >>r...@virginia.edu (E-mail)
> >
> >My response was (and is):
> >
> >Dear Richard McCarty:
> > I expect a reasonable and responsible reply to all the points
contained in all the FOUR e-mails I sent the other day. I want to know
what is being done as well (and in-full).
> > Let me add that I have problems with **** YOUR **** peer-review
process (i.e. that of some APA journals -- as shown in one of the major
posts I sent to you). I have clearly illustrated how MISREPRESENTED crap
has been published and presented with CLEARLY unwarranted conclusions.
THIS **IS** YOUR RESPONSIBILITY, if you **accept** any responsibilities
for science at all. Furthermore the APA, as an accrediting organization,
has *legal responsibilities* for the standards set for higher education;
you are responsible for what you accredit and how you accredit and how the
accreditation is represented. Major gaps in foundation research and
misrepresentation of the scientific backing and scientific nature of
practitioners is ***YOUR*** job **or** you take on no job at all and are
committing malfeasance (the latter through aiding and abetting clear
negligence, IF NOT *also* for misrepresentation). (You better get used to
all these ideas. The next APA President R. Suinn has s!
> !
> !
> !
> upported ME !!) The ONLY question is: who will have what it takes to
> simply do what is right and what is needed in their official roles? ALL
> others shall look bad in retrospect and their reputations shall rightly
> suffer. MANY KNOW what you know and when you knew it; this fact, along
> with the clear negligence, shall be exposed.
>
> > I demand a response from YOU, *** as an office holder in the APA
***. "Stuff" your personal opinions and free-reigning biases and your
self-serving tendencies (I really do NOT care). Are you to represent a
science organization or a guild union? If it is a self-serving guild
union, it MUST be represented as such (and cannot pretend to have a true
accreditting status -- without being misleading and legally FRAUDULENT).
Let me be perfectly clear here: If it is a guild union, properly
represent yourself or suffer the legal consequences. You shall receive no
further notifications; I shall NOT warn you again. You can operate
responsibly of suffer legal consequences.
> >
> >regards, brad jesness (assoc. member of the APA)
>
> ------------------
>
> Subject: Formal Complaints Against APA, Post 1 of 2
>
> Dear APA President Martin Seligman:
> As an associate member of the APA, I have filed complaints as formally
> as I could see how. And, I have filed these complaints with all the
> appropriate offices and officers of the APA, but have received NO
> RESPONSE, much less reasonable action. I shall again submit my
> complaints to you, so you can see if all the relevant offices and
> officers INDEED did receive tbem and so you can prompt appropriate
> action and an appropriate response to theses complaints. Below is the
> first of two posts, outlining material complaints about APA processes,
> behavior, and procedures:
>
>
>
> Complaints of *GROSS NEGLIGENCE* Filed Against the APA
>
> The nature of the overall complaint is directly below. More about the
> specific deficiencies leading to the complaint are below that:
>
> THE POSITION AND GENERAL COMPLAINT:
>
> It is my view that as surely as we hold the medical establishment
> (e.g. the CDC) responsible for epidemics of physical health, and as
> surely as we hold the Fed. Trans. Safety Board responsible for airline
> safety, the Amer. Psychological Assoc. has some notable responsibility
> for services needed if they are not being provided.
> With the present critical rise in teen suicides, I question whether
> all that is reasonable and responsible is being done for the provision
> of a system of mental health care. If a problem goes unabated, the
> answer is (as it would be for other agencies or institutions): "NO". I
> have argued that the psychological establishment is *grossly* negligent
> in providing encouragements for basic foundation research that would
> point up special needs where professional work is most needed (and thus
> lead to the development of better care through reasonable
> specialization) *AND* would lead to the development of a SYSTEM of
> mental health care providers AS IS REASONABLE, with a variety of roles.
>
> I also see the organization failing to support the development of a
> common and reasonable science-practitioner role that IS arguably THE
> ONLY THING that will advance the science generally. I have clearly
> outlined the nature of problems and deficiencies and they are not being
> addressed. There is a general self-satisfaction OR a willingness to
> improve only on their terms; clinical psychologists and their major
> parent organization show no willingness to make many improvements OR
> even any willingness to do investigations that may lead to more
> reasonable specializations OF ROLES in the field and improvements in
> services.
> The pompous presumptuousness and pretentiousness of clinical
> psychologists, I say, is beginning to kill our children. We've seen the
> record of the APA and its members on mental health care for a long time
> now. How long are we going to give them ?? At least we can see the rise
> in psychological problems unabated as a sign that CLINICAL psychologists
> are not doing a good job, can't we? OR SHOULD THEY BE ALLOWED TO SIMPLY
> TAKE RESPONSIBILITY (AND CREDIT) AS CONVENIENT?? NOBODY'S GOING TO LET
> THEM DO THAT. Snake oil "works" sometimes, too.
> Although the APA is not a government institution my point largely
> stands !! Especially since there is no government agency in the role of
> "policing-of-needs" job for clinical psychologists. Some say "the APA is
> just a professional organization." Not so; it is an accrediting body for
> programs in higher education !!!! Think about this situation:
> How would you like it if the standards of good research and
> training for a profession were accredited (and monitored) by a private
> guild union out to promote its membership AS IS? How would you like this
> to be true when the standards of self-representation and practice of
> this professional group has been (for a century now) based in good part
> ON MYTH? How would you like it if the training programs I'm referring to
> take place in UNIVERSITIES, in programs ostensibly offering the best
> (and "highest level") of training? Well, this is precisely the case with
> universities and the American Psychological Association. This private
> lobby organization ACCREDITS programs of public higher education at the
> highest levels. It is also very clearly possible to show that basic
> foundation research has not been done to establish the
> counseling/therapy field -- to show where it stands, how services
> offered compare to the help that might be provided by other reasonable
> helpers AND related research that would show where special techniques
> and treatments really need to be developed. It is very possible to argue
> that there is gross negligence in the reasonable provision of treatment
> because of self-protective presumptions on the part of the group and
> their lobby organization, the APA. The APA, I believe, is now culpable
> for gross negligence in failing to make reasonable provisions for care
> and could be sued by families whose members have suffered from needless
> low levels of care and from unreasonably unspecialized care.
> What the guild lobby and union (the APA) has done is to secure a
> *legal* status for its members (i.e. they have lobbied for a position of
> power in society and have to some large degree achieved that). Only
> people with certain higher ed. qualifications (and a license) can
> represent themselves a "psychologists," offering services clinically.
> Now this would be fine, but this licensure, ETC. is no guarantee of
> quality in standards or practices OR quality in education !! And the APA
> is doing an absolutely awful job of securing good research and
> (relatedly) good education and standards in-practice.
>
>
> It is my view that the point has been reached where clinical
> psychologists do more to hold up AND PREVENT needed services and science
> progress than they do good. The APA basically facilitates this. Others
> could step in and likely do most of the job clinical psychologists now
> do.
> And I do hold the APA and clinical psychologists responsible for
> deaths already. There has been more of a concern about power and
> politics (e.g. licensing and laws giving clinical psychologists
> exclusive "turf") than there has been concern OR INVESTMENT for
> developing an appropriate tested science. Now I know they have their
> myths, convenient concerns, and rationalizations, BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN
> A THING. These "professionals" have all the trappings and glory a group
> could possibly have and be so useless. I have indicated basic foundation
> research needed and why. The points are OBVIOUSLY unassailable, except
> on grounds of presumption, myth, and pretense. All clinical people
> (INCLUDING THE RECENT APA PRESIDENT, SELIGMAN HIMSELF) try to do is drag
> down (they hope once and for all) the few studies that have been done on
> some important questions. AND THEY ARGUE SO ALL MIGHT BE SATISFIED WITH
> POOR SCIENCE ! They like to discount gaps in research by citing the
> presence of *other largely unrelated* pieces of research. Well, in real
> science, one thing does not make up for ANOTHER !! They support
> basically whatever studies SEEMS TO BACK THEM (pick and choose). They
> are NEEDLESSLY SATISFIED WITH poorer studies than could be done and with
> studies that are less than that which would be needed to back
> things-as-they-are.
> The research on the question of professional efficacy vs. other
> helpers (not yet well answered at all and which has been neglected for
> 17 years, since the last good study) is pivotal to providing a sound
> basis for the creation of a system of personnel as mental health
> resources *AND* to finding the truly difficult problems where
> professional work should be concentrated. AND: Nothing has been done
> AS APPROPRIATE, given the nature of the subject matter, to set up a
> system that would yield continuously improving inter-rater reliabilities
> on many fronts. The local science- practitioner role I have outlined
> would do this, and having counselors/therapists become such
> practitioners should be part and parcel of graduate training. If each
> training institution had some *continuously* ON-GOING specialized
> research, this would also help greatly (though this alone may not
> suffice).
> "Therapists" are often nothing but a bunch of self-serving, hacks.
> They practice "science" (act. technology, or an "apparent form" of
> such), as convenient (usually as an isolated incident to get their
> degree), and otherwise make claims of "art" as convenient. Well, it is
> all both at the same time. The emphasizing one or the other as
> convenient for propaganda has to stop. Adaptational problems are
> becoming more rampant in our society. Children are dying by their own
> hands. Maybe clinical psychologists don't think that is worth talking
> about, but others may.
>
> [snip]
> ---------------------------------------------
>
> Nature of Deficiencies Seen in research and practice, leading to the
> complaint:
>
> Review of argument, in brief:
>
> The modus operandi is wrong for good continuing (integrated)
> research on several fronts and real science. The RECORD shows us more
> here: Just one example: The DSM committee had very, very, very few
> studies on inter-rater reliabilities of diagnostic criteria to look at
> before they came up with DSM-IV options. Look at the 40 most common
> diagnoses (DSM-IV Sourcebook, Vol. 2): the committee had far less than
> half that many studies on the reliability of criteria (and this is even
> though there are multiple criteria (often around 8) for each disorder).
> This is very telling. ARE WE GOING TO LET THIS HAPPEN AGAIN BETWEEN THE
> DSM-IV AND DSM-V???? I have argued for a true science practitioner role,
> where clinical psychologists (typically) work together regularly to
> develop (on a continuing basis) better and better inter-rater
> reliabilities about diagnoses (or behavioral problems), treatments, and
> assessing outcomes.
Mark Morin
>
> Martin Seligman, having not reasonably responded to the long standing
> formal complaints lodged against the APA and having not enforced any
> response from the APA staff in this regard, is expected to resign his
> post as sitting President of the APA.
Hi Brad.
Now this just might pass the test for libel.
328?
--
=====================================================================
My life is weaving an intricate, necessary pattern that is uniquely
mine. I will be grateful for the experiences of today that give my
tapestry its beauty.
Gene Douglas
Amer_Psych_Assoc wrote in message
<1998072718...@sirius.infonex.com>...
:Martin Seligman, having not reasonably responded to the long standing
:formal complaints lodged against the APA and having not enforced any
:response from the APA staff in this regard, is expected to resign his
:post as sitting President of the APA. This should occur at the
:convention. This is what we expect. He should be doing this recognizing
:his shameful dereliction of duty. The very same charges of negligence
:lodged against APA officer McCarty (in a post quoted below) could be
:lodged against Seligman.
:
:For some background on this matter, I quote Brad Jesness hereon. (I will
:begin with a description of Seligman's "postion", which seems to be
omitted
Nancy Alvarado
Anonymous wrote in message <1998072720...@replay.com>...
>Brad fans realize that a portion of Brad's main complaint paper was cut
>off in the post above (and quoted below). I will add that now for
>interested readers, picking up right where the other post left off):
Brad has no fans.
>Some Concluding Remarks:
Brad has no concluding remarks. He goes on forever.
Nancy
John Clark
Nancy Alvarado wrote:
> Anonymous wrote in message <1998072720...@replay.com>...
>
> >Brad fans realize that a portion of Brad's main complaint paper was cut
> >off in the post above (and quoted below). I will add that now for
> >interested readers, picking up right where the other post left off):
>
> Brad has no fans.
Well, then what's blowing the the hot air?
Joseph P. Arco
>
> Brad fans...
What are you fanning now, Brad?