Steven Specht <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Now this is simply offensive. If you don't have the professional courtesy to use your own name, I will not read any more of your messages. I didn't even read this one past the point where you admitted not using your own name. Go to another list where pseudonyms are used regularly for whatever silly reason. It's really all quite childish and you've undermined your own mesages and purpose.Anton Mason wrote:
K. Amberville here. A friend of mine, who happens to be a member of the fireflySun staff, had requested I subscribe under his name and permitted me to use his account for the day to put the finishing touches on my contribution to this thread. I am trying to persuade Ehrenfels or his staff to take an interest in this debate, but he seems disinterested or distracted by book release preparations (I am told the review copies will be available in the next 2-3 weeks).There has been a great deal of speculation about my identity, which I hope to lay to rest here since it has fueled motivated misperceptions. Kelly Amberville is a pseudonym. Any of you paying close attention would have realized that on some occasions I spell my name Kelley and on others Kelly. Kelly Amberville, however, is not a pseudonym for J. Wyatt Ehrenfels, not that I wouldn't enjoy being mistaken for this man, but I somehow think he would not rather you not. Even if I had revealed my name, it would not turn up in a Google search. I have maintained a string of adjunct faculty positions only. Now allow me to address the misperceptions being peddled by one person in particular.
(1) Ehrenfels is a web presence
He has likened his web activities to the primary stage of a political campaign. Once his book is released, he will step off the pages of the Internet and into the brick-and-mortar world, though he intends to reach as many psychology majors as possible by e-mail. They will know in advance of any speaking engagements in their area and they will receive a copy of his 16-points memo bemoaning psychology's lack of career preparation and education. It is true that the Internet is a great grassroots political and propoganda tool. Just ask Howard Dean.
The comparison of Ehrenfels to a conspiracy theorist is an odd method of re-directing and deflecting. It would seem to me the author of those remarks himself sees a conspiracy of conspiracy theorists, which makes him a conspiracy theorist.
(2) Ehrenfels is a lone wolf
A review of the Ehrenfels web site will demonstrate that he carries a growing bandwagon, though the word bandwagon would probably insult him. I get the impression he detests groupees and prefers a coalition of independent thinkers to another counterfeit "community" like Psychology.
(3) Ehrenfels as misfit who belongs in another field
According to his web site, he has been interested in dreaming since he was 13 and was more well read by 18 than most of us in this field. His precocious interest worked against his socialization into the academic culture, for as he states, to outmaneuver the competition into a tenure-track position, you have to embody the epistemology in full, and every chink in your devotion is exposed at every checkpoint (milestone), where you have to appeal to the lowest common denominator of some committee. He views Psychology as a celebration of mediocrity. Nothing original gets through. You have to like long shots and compromises, and in his mind, the business end of this is too distracting and too counterproductive to TRUE science and TRUE professional development. In his view, Psychology is not a science nor is it a liberal art, for at every level have we surrendered or constrained the discretion that constitutes the art built-in to TRUE science.
In his view, people like yourself hijacked Psychology in the name of things remotely psychologistic and pseudo-scientific, and quite frankly, I suspect he has just as much if not more of a claim to this field than you. And he intends to take it back. I for one intend to help him when he can figure out a role I can play in his campaign.
(4) The charge of SPAM
There is an incendiary word, a magical incantation if you will, invoked to rally support for your view. If only I could all my adversaries SPAMMERS, I could send them even further into the political wilderness. But before I diagnose an e-mail as SPAM, I ascertain whether it meets at least three of the following four criteria: (a) fraudulent (forged headers), (b) evasive (re-routing), (c) repetitive, and (d) non-discriminating (blind bulk without regard to a target audience). When the Iraq War was underway, and participants across many listservs of which I was a member wanted to get political, I exercised restraint in the use of word SPAM.
(5) Use of the Title Doctor
Ehrenfels probably would not mind if you called him Wyatt. I would not mind if you called me Kelly. In my case, for example, both Kelly and Dr. Amberville would be appropriate (if that were my name). But Ms. Amberville is misleading with respect to title and thus inaccurate. So the whole discussion of formality and pretense is a red herring. Mr. Green probably does not use the prefix Mr. often and knew what he was doing when he prepended it to Ehrenfels.
(6) Final Six Messages at that link provided by Mr. Green
Read them. What of them?
(7) Overblown Sense of Importance
Ehrenfels has been threatened by litigation. One of the institutions of which his book is a compilation forced his wife (at that time a student) to relay threatening messages to him and then suggested that her choice of husbands reflects poorly on her clinical judgment. Ehrenfels withdrew from the program after seeking a post-doctoral clinical respecialization diploma. Ehrenfels only grudgingly adopted the nom de plum after repeated overtures from supporters, whose fears were vindicated after this incident and a related incident in which a psychology professor was almost struck crossing the street against the light to avoid Ehrenfels, who was on his way to the metro I think. You'll have to consult his web site on this.
The source of the overblown importance remark is likely so holed up in his Ivory Dungeon as not be able to distinguish between what is real and what is hype. All that wistful speculation could have been avoided by a simple question.
My thanks to Steven Specht for exhibiting a healthy balance of open-mindedness and skepticism.
K.
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]--
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Steven M. Specht, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Psychology
Department of Psychology
Utica College
Utica, NY 13502
(315) 792-3171"unanswered questions are less dangerous than unquestioned answers"
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
