Paul Meehl has supported Brad
Anonymous
from Alvin Mahrer (1997 APA Disting. Psychol. Award Winner), but a lot of support
from Allen Ivey, who posted more than once _personally_ in support of Brad. PLUS Ivey was
quoted giving the same kind of enthusiasic support Mahrer gave, point-by-point.
Not only is all this in the deja record, along with the repeated support of Paul
Barrett, chief scientist and clinical researcher, but the great Paul Meehl also
supported Brad's manifesto (a main part of the web site). Yes, folks, it's all in
the Dejanews record. Carroll Izard and others have also lent their support.
The same site that leads others (less distinguished) to
engage in spam, harassment, and defamation of character gets high praise from
others. All should read Brad's site for themselves:
http://www.future.net/~bradj/it.html is the very best of client advocacy sites
Don't believe anything else until you read it for yourself.
Joseph P. Arco
>
> Don't believe anything else until you read it for yourself.
Joseph P. Arco
>
> Joe: Don't believe everything you read. Fact is, not 1/4th
> of the screen names attributed to Brad could possibly
> be shown to be him. Brad has admitted all the many screen
> names he has used and there is absolutely clear evidence
> that he used them with just a half dozen valid, known e-mail
> addresses. AND the clear evidence shows: he was either
> "Cognitee" OR signed the
> VAST MAJORITY OF THEM.
I don't believe what you write.
> What you point up is just
> falsehoods likely generated by the confessed liar, alias, "Peter
> Hood" -- a man who has lied to us all for years, claimed publications
> under a false name, threatened physical violence and other
> illegal actions repeatedly !!
Projecting again!
>
> AND all should know what really has you mad, Joe. IT DOES. Yes,
> exactly:
[deleted]
Projecting again for the second time!
>
> You (those in your field, typically) do not want to be responsible
> to clients or science but
> want to lie and say they are. Brad virtually proves that on that web site.
>
> Misguided, malicious Joe Arco wrote:
Projecting again for the third time!
[deleted]
Nancy Stone
Anonymous wrote in message
<7f08b400c3ea2195...@base.xs4all.nl>...
>YES, indeed. There is not only evidence of a high level of support for
Brad's ideas
snip
>Not only is all this in the deja record, along with the repeated support of
Paul
>Barrett, chief scientist and clinical researcher, but the great Paul Meehl
also
>supported Brad's manifesto (a main part of the web site). Yes, folks, it's
all
>in the Dejanews record.
snip
>Don't believe anything else until you read it for yourself.
>
I went back and read the Dejanews record for myself. Here is what I found.
Brad never mentioned Meehl in 1995. In 1996 he apparently sent Meehl a copy
of his Manifesto and requested feedback. He also sent it to others,
including Allen Ivey. Meehl wrote the following message to Brad, as quoted
by Brad himself on 2/4/96, 2/14/96, and 2/19/96 to mention a few dates.
Here I include the context in which Meehl's remarks were embedded by Brad:
B: In other words, to some not
actively considering ACTING in accord with the views [in his manifesto] and
DOING something about the situation, it may all seem pretty much "ok" and
agreeable. BUT immediately below is Paul Meehl's response to the ideas: (I
quote):
M: "These thoughts are interesting but also pretty complex and
controversial. Some colleagues would doubtless be deeply troubled. I
have retired from practice and cerebrating on such matters has hence
taken low priority at my age (76). I would not feel comfortable
expressing (shortly) opinions on them, and a thorough examination is not
feasible for me. Sorry not to be more helpful.
Paul Meehl
Paul E. Meehl / Leslie J. Yonce " (end quote)
B: OBVIOUSLY for someone who has been a big player in the therapy field
the repercusions and implications of the ideas seem a lot heavier than
you and some others imagine. But it is not a problem, I submit, for
practical reasons, but rather more for policical reasons.
Regards, B Jesness
----------------------
Meehl's letter doesn't sound like support to me. Nor does Brad consider it
support. He uses it repeatedly as evidence of how controversial his
manifesto really is, first to Ed Anderson in the message above, but also to
Rolf Lindgren. To another poster on 2/4/96 Brad says:
"I do not feel comfortable providing you names of all 5 or so "big name"
individuals who have subscribed to the tenets...I guess to show you that it
is a possible area of controversy, I could quote Paul Meeh's general
qualitative response: [same quote as above]"
Clearly Brad considers Meehl's response to be a lack of support related to
the controversial nature of his manifesto.
Throughout much of 1996, most of the references to Meehl are made by David
Longley. Then on 9/25/96, Brad buys a copy of "House of Cards" and says:
"[referring to Dawes, the author of the book]...having worked with the very
famous Meehl..."
Brad makes no mention of any friendship with Meehl or any support from Meehl
for his own ideas.
In December of 1996, under fire for inflating his own credentials, Brad
began inventing famous connections . He said on 12/10/96:
"Since we are apparently just 'dropping names', I should tell you that I am
a friend of the great Meehl..."
He also said that he corresponded with Kurt Fischer and E.O. Wilson. Most
people took that to mean that he sent them mail, not that they ever
reciprocated.
David Longley became excited about that remark and immediately asked Brad to
pass along to Meehl one of the e-mails in which he expressed his own ideas
about psychology. On 12/14/96, Brad refused, saying:
"Meehl is retired..."
He finally offered to read Longley's e-mail himself and decide whether to
pass it along or not. Thereafter, several posters pointed out that Longley
could get Meehl's e-mail address himself from the University of Minnesota
directory, just as Brad probably did.
In May 1997 Brad put up his webpage. Several people hailed it because it
might mean that Brad would no longer spam his manifesto to all the
newsgroups. In July, 1997, Brad began claiming that Meehl was a supporter
of his manifesto. Various people challenged whether that was true or not,
requesting proof, and Brad replied on 7/20/97:
"I won't trouble Meehl for this newsgroup."
He also claimed that he had regular conversations with Meehl, Tellegen and
others at the University of Minnesota, that he attended a conference with
Meehl, and so on. Most newsgroup members took that in the same spirit as
his remark that he "affiliated himself" with the university. Brad once
posted a "4-hour talk" with Meehl. It seems likely that was a summary of a
colloquium, seminar, or conference session that Brad attended, though Brad
implied it was a one-on-one session.
Following that, Brad began regularly claiming Meehl as one of his
supporters. He never provided any e-mail, post, letter, or other
confirmation of Meehl's support. For the remainder of 1997 to the present,
all further references to Meehl by Brad are made to either assert or contest
that support. They are very similar to the sentence at the beginning of
this post by Anonymous:
"the great Paul Meehl also supported Brad's manifesto"
David Longley continues to refer to Meehl in substantive posts.
I think this is a wonderful example of the malleability of memory over time.
Meehl obviously looms large in Brad's world. As he stated two years ago,
the man is retired (now 78) and does not wish to be involved in reading
Brad's screed, much less thinking about it or publicly commenting on it.
Brad has somehow turned this around in his mind as support. I know he would
like to be supported by someone he refers to as "very famous" or "great."
That isn't the same as actually being supported by Meehl. Unless Brad can
produce some tangible evidence of support, I think we can all safely assume
this is a combination of wishful thinking and convenient memory.
There are 2800 messages mentioning Meehl in some capacity. The key messages
above were made variously by Incognee, Cognitee, BogiesFriend, and more
recently, by Anonymous. The decline in Brad's ability or willingness to
sustain a substantive conversation is very noticeable when you see it over
the perspective of three years of posts.
Nancy
Anonymous
of the screen names attributed to Brad could possibly
be shown to be him. Brad has admitted all the many screen
names he has used and there is absolutely clear evidence
that he used them with just a half dozen valid, known e-mail
addresses. AND the clear evidence shows: he was either
"Cognitee" OR signed the
Hood" -- a man who has lied to us all for years, claimed publications
under a false name, threatened physical violence and other
illegal actions repeatedly !!
AND all should know what really has you mad, Joe. IT DOES. Yes,
exactly: http://www.future.net/~bradj/it.html
You (those in your field, typically) do not want to be responsible
to clients or science but
want to lie and say they are. Brad virtually proves that on that web site.
Misguided, malicious Joe Arco wrote:
From:
"Joseph P. Arco" <ja...@jarco.mv.com>
Newsgroups:
sci.psychology.psychotherapy, alt.usenet.kooks
Subject:
[Brad] Re: Paul Meehl has supported Brad
Followup-To:
alt.usenet.kooks
Date:
Fri, 20 Nov 1998 16:50:28 -0800
Organization:
ARCO CONSULTING
Lines:
5
Message-ID:
<36560E...@jarco.mv.com>
References:
<7f08b400c3ea2195...@base.xs4all.nl>
NNTP-Posting-Host:
bnh-2-11.mv.com
Mime-Version:
1.0
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
7bit
X-Mailer:
Mozilla 2.02 (Win16; I)
Xref:
news alt.usenet.kooks:116236 sci.psychology.psychotherapy:72289
Anonymous wrote:
>
> Don't believe anything else until you read it for yourself.
William M. Grove
<dans...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>In May 1997 Brad put up his webpage. Several people hailed it because it
>might mean that Brad would no longer spam his manifesto to all the
>newsgroups. In July, 1997, Brad began claiming that Meehl was a supporter
>of his manifesto. Various people challenged whether that was true or not,
>requesting proof, and Brad replied on 7/20/97:
>
>"I won't trouble Meehl for this newsgroup."
>
>He also claimed that he had regular conversations with Meehl, Tellegen and
>others at the University of Minnesota, that he attended a conference with
>Meehl, and so on. Most newsgroup members took that in the same spirit as
>his remark that he "affiliated himself" with the university. Brad once
>posted a "4-hour talk" with Meehl. It seems likely that was a summary of a
>colloquium, seminar, or conference session that Brad attended, though Brad
>implied it was a one-on-one session.
>
Nancy, your surmise seems to me to be correct. I was there. There
was a 4-hour talk, of which Meehl's talk was one part (as I recall)
but maybe not the whole of it (I no longer recall precisely, but it
seems implausible to me that Paul talked for 4 hours nonstop!). I saw
Paul Meehl (my ex-advisor, my colleague, and my personal friend,
FWIW) there, giving a talk. I also saw an individual I understood and
believe was Brad Jesness. I saw this person speak very briefly with
Paul after the symposium was done. I saw no lengthy one-on-one
conversation.
Paul has not, in the course of my asking what (if anything) he wanted
done about Jesness's claims about Paul's support of his views,
indicated that (a) he had any long one-on-one conversations with
Jesness, or (b) that he wants be perceived as a supporter of Brad's
ideas, _as Brad states them_. He (wisely, IMHO) didn't post anything
on the ng, because anybody can see that doing so only seems to
reinforce Brad's overabundant posting behavior. (Meehl doesn't lurk
here; I forwarded to him one Brad posting so he'd be aware of how his,
Paul's, name, was being used by Brad.)
I myself didn't post this info to the ng, for the exact same reason.
But now I've just had it with the guy.
To Brad: Have some decency, man. Please leave Paul Meehl out of your
postings, web pages, e-mails, midnight ruminations or whatever, Brad.
Fact: Paul Meehl is the smartest psychologist I have had the privilege
to know (and I've known some smart ones).
Fact: Paul Meehl has highly nuanced views, worked out over many many
years of hard thought, about matters which touch on some of your
concerns. Frankly, I have doubts you are well equipped to grasp the
many nuances of Meehl's views.
Request: Please do not imply approval of, or connection with, Paul
Meehl, beyond what the facts actually warrant. It's rude and
deceptive, IMHO. It's annoying to people who respect Paul (and they
are many), and it fools no one. Paul (and the rest of us, for that
matter) have hundreds of other things to better occupy ourselves with
than listening to your extremist views, especially when they are
packaged with so much vitriol.
Whatever sympathy one might have for the actual cognitive core of some
of your views (and I do have some, though I hesitate to admit this,
because I don't want to go on your new, improved list of
"supporters"), it gets swamped by the enormous damage you do all the
time to your own cause by your extraordinarily intemperate statements,
scandalous and slanderous (or quasi-so---I am not a lawyer, so I don't
know exactly where the line is) attacks on people who disagree with
you, etc.
Please feel free to advocate for your views, as yours. If they're
good, they won't get better from being endorsed by famous people. If
they're bad, they won't get better either no matter how many people
say they agree with them. Please, argue entirely on the merits, not
by "famous acquaintance." If, indeed, you must continue to restate
your arguments at all. I for one think I've read all I need to read
about them.
Will Grove
Assoc. Prof, Clinical Science & Psychopathology Research Program,
Dept. of Psychology, U of Minnesota
Anonymous
I doubt you are privy to all the conversations and correspondence
between Meehl and Brad. I have seen correspondence I would
consider supportive. But, perhaps, "mums" the word.
From:
William....@tc.umn.edu (William M. Grove)
Newsgroups:
sci.psychology.psychotherapy
Subject:
Re: Paul Meehl has supported Brad
Date:
Tue, 24 Nov 1998 18:47:30 GMT
Organization:
University of Minnesota
Lines:
81
Message-ID:
<365af969....@newsstand.tc.umn.edu>
References:
<7f08b400c3ea2195...@base.xs4all.nl> <7358db$5u5$1...@ash.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host:
grove.psych.umn.edu
Mime-Version:
1.0
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
7bit
X-Newsreader:
Forte Agent 1.5/32.451
Xref:
news sci.psychology.psychotherapy:72678
Anonymous
Perhaps we should be grateful that Brad "has the time" to deal
with the clear science deficiencies of your field. By golly, no one
else seems to "get to it". Clear science and ethical deficiencies
do not make the top 100 concerns of many supposd psychologists,
INCLUDING PROFESSORS, (who offer up psychology as a science) !!
Anonymous
hitters" here is Brad. He has been addressed by Seligman (whose
biased unjustified view, based on a poorly-founded leap of faith or
unfounded belief was quickly countered by Brad -- and following
that Seligman fled from all the parts of the internet publicly
accessible).
Ivey has spoken to Brad's views twice personally, posting HERE.
Carroll Izard has written
to Brad informing him that his paper at
http://www.future.net/~bradj/it.html should be the topic of
professional discussion.
Major clinical researchers (e.g. Paul Barrett) has made it clear
that Brad cites MANY points in need of discussion AND RESEARCH.
Distinguished Psychologist, Alvin Mahrer, has given Brad's web
site a glowing review.
Another professor and psychologist at the
U of MN (other than Meehl) has been cited and quoted giving a
positive positive response to Brad. ( Just check the Deja news
record for details !!!)
BUT STILL NO ONE WANTS TO TALK ABOUT IT !!! The field
is a scientific disgrace and a fraud. Brad has shown that.
They are hiding. BUT THEY HAVE LOST THE MORAL HIGH
GROUND. Now, not doing anything to clear up the clear
deficiencies is simply unethical. Are you behaving unethically,
Dr. Grove ??? (You do seem to have 100 more important things
that addressing what is necessary to make diagnoses and common
research and practice come up to the needs of science Brad well-
addresses the most major issues in those areas.)
Dan Rogers
most important psychologists, ever, in my view.
William M. Grove wrote in message
<365af969....@newsstand.tc.umn.edu>...
>On Fri, 20 Nov 1998 18:29:42 -0000, "Nancy Stone"
><dans...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>In May 1997 Brad put up his webpage. Several people hailed it because it
>>might mean that Brad would no longer spam his manifesto to all the
>>newsgroups. In July, 1997, Brad began claiming that Meehl was a supporter
>>of his manifesto. Various people challenged whether that was true or not,
>>requesting proof, and Brad replied on 7/20/97:
>>
>>"I won't trouble Meehl for this newsgroup."
>>
>>He also claimed that he had regular conversations with Meehl, Tellegen and
>>others at the University of Minnesota, that he attended a conference with
>>Meehl, and so on. Most newsgroup members took that in the same spirit as
>>his remark that he "affiliated himself" with the university. Brad once
>>posted a "4-hour talk" with Meehl. It seems likely that was a summary of
a
>>colloquium, seminar, or conference session that Brad attended, though Brad
>>implied it was a one-on-one session.
>>
Russ Dowsing
As an interested and amused or should that be bemused bystander, I have
followed this 'soap' for some while, always expecting there to be a punch line
to the joke.
It was a bit of a shock to realise that there is no joke and that these
postings were 'for real'. Can it really be that the mental health of those in
need of help is in the hands of so called profesionals who 'talk' like they are
in need of some help themselves ?
Will Groves articulate, reasoned and intelligent observations are about the
only posting on this site recently that offer any hope to the patients.
Or have I missed something ? Is this site by the patients, for the patients
?
Please don't flame me BJ ( Monicas favourite intials ? ), it isn't
professional.
Anonymous
he values the support he has received. Robyn Dawes also supported
Brad much more than he is willing to admit in public. This backing
away from controversy in public is not a rare phenomenon.
From:
"Dan Rogers" <dlro...@frontiernet.net>
Newsgroups:
sci.psychology.psychotherapy
Subject:
Re: Paul Meehl has supported Brad
Date:
Tue, 24 Nov 1998 19:22:17 -0600
Organization:
Dan Rogers
Lines:
89
Message-ID:
<73fm57$1vnm$1...@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net>
References:
<7f08b400c3ea2195...@base.xs4all.nl> <7358db$5u5$1...@ash.prod.itd.earthlink.net> <365af969....@newsstand.tc.umn.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host:
as5200-1-46.ftd.ia.frontiernet.net
X-Complaints-To:
ab...@frontiernet.net
X-Newsreader:
Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5
X-MimeOLE:
Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3
Xref:
news sci.psychology.psychotherapy:72727
Very well put. I agree with you about Prof. Meehl: clearly one of the
most important psychologists, ever, in my view.
[snip]
[post from William Grove, seemingly illustrating Meehl's backing away
from Brad snipped]